Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates

Utah Valley University
Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates
A project submitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree of
Masters in Education
in
Curriculum and Instruction
by
Brian T. Bean
Spring 2013
ii
Utah Valley University
Graduate Committee Approval
Of a project submitted by
Brian T. Bean
This project has been read by each member of the following graduate
Committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.
Date
Susan Simmerman, Chair
Date
Debora Escalante
iii
Abstract
The for-profit college industry is growing and industry officials believe their success is due to their ability to deliver an educational product that is more in sync with the needs of today’s job market than that of their competitors from traditional universities (Yeoman, 2011). Despite the growth in this industry, there has not been any significant research done specifically regarding the public perception of the for-profit college industry. This program evaluation focused on determining the public perception of a specific category of people living within or near Utah County, Utah regarding the for-profit college industry and specifically Stevens-Henager College. Participants in this study included students who are enrolled in a Stevens-Henager College GED® preparatory tutoring course at the school’s Provo/Orem, Utah campus. Participants were surveyed and interviewed at the beginning of their tutoring as well as upon completion of the course.
Most participants viewed for-profit college degrees favorably, but still believe that a degree from a traditional university is more valuable on a resume. A significant finding from this study indicates that additional research should be done to determine how many people within the target demographic know the difference between a for-profit college and a traditional university. This is important as the potential effects of participants’ ignorance when it comes to college types could impact their perception towards for-profit colleges, which in turn could dramatically impact decision making. Results also indicate that offering free GED® tutoring has the potential to be an effective marketing tool. iv
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement and Research Questions................................................................... 3
Significance.................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Methodology .............................................................................................. 3
Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 Literature ........................................................................................................... 6
Market for For-Profit Colleges ....................................................................................... 6
Criticisms of For-Profit Colleges .................................................................................... 7
Business Model of For-Profit Colleges......................................................................... 10
The Need for For-Profit Colleges ................................................................................. 11
Gaps in the Literature Regarding For-Profit Colleges .................................................. 11
Program Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 3 Methodology ................................................................................................... 13
Program Evaluation Model ........................................................................................... 13
Context and Participants ............................................................................................... 14
Instruments .................................................................................................................... 14
Data Collection and Analysis........................................................................................ 15
Chapter 4 Results ............................................................................................................. 16
Directly Related Questions ........................................................................................... 16 v
Pre-Program Survey Question 5 ............................................................................... 17
Pre-Program Survey Question 9 ............................................................................... 18
Pre-Program Survey Question 11 ............................................................................. 18
Post-Program Survey Question 3 .............................................................................. 20
Post-Program Survey Question 4 .............................................................................. 21
Interview Question 1 ................................................................................................. 21
Interview Question 2 ................................................................................................. 23
Interview Question 3 ................................................................................................. 24
Interview Question 4 ................................................................................................. 25
Background Questions .................................................................................................. 27
Chapter 5 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 30
Problem Statement and Methodology Review ............................................................. 30
Results Summary .......................................................................................................... 31
Directly Related Survey Questions ........................................................................... 31
Interview Results Summary ...................................................................................... 32
Background Questions .............................................................................................. 33
Discussion of Results .................................................................................................... 34
Limitations ................................................................................................................ 38
Recommendations in General and for Further Research .......................................... 39
References ......................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A: Instruments .................................................................................................. 43
Informed Consent Form ................................................................................................ 44
Pre-Program Survey ...................................................................................................... 46 vi
Post-Program Survey .................................................................................................... 47
Interview Script ............................................................................................................. 48
Appendix B: Results Analysis, Additional Tables ........................................................... 49
Tables Representing Data Analysis Results ................................................................. 49
Appendix C: Raw Data ..................................................................................................... 57
Pre-Program Survey ...................................................................................................... 57
Post-Program Survey .................................................................................................... 62
Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix D: IRB Approval .............................................................................................. 67
vii
List of Tables
Table Page
3.1 Participant Age Statistics .......................................................................................... 21
4.1 Rankings According to Getting the Best Jobs .......................................................... 25
4.2 Response Examples for Interview Question 2 .......................................................... 29
4.3 Response Examples for Interview Question 3 .......................................................... 31
viii
List of Figures
Figure Page
4.1 Downsides of For-Profit Colleges by “Knew the Difference” Group ...................... 32
4.2 Downsides of For-Profit Colleges by “Did Not Know the Difference” Group ........ 32
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Some might say that the Utah County, Utah area is over-saturated with higher-education opportunities. In addition to two major universities, Utah County also houses many for-profit colleges ranging from beauty academies to automotive welding programs. One for-profit college, Stevens-Henager College, has two campuses, one in Orem, Utah and a satellite campus in Lehi, Utah. This program evaluation focused on determining the public perception of a specific category of people living within or near Utah County, Utah regarding Stevens-Henager College. In addition, the results from this study will be used to make recommendations to Stevens-Henager College concerning marketing strategies. This chapter contains a brief explanation of the background reasoning for the study, the problem and research questions that guided the study, the professional significance both academically and professionally for the study, and a review of literature relevant to the study.
Background
Recently the for-profit college industry has received a lot of attention due to an increase of government activity. The Obama Administration has enacted a number of changes to the regulations that govern the industry, especially concerning recruitment standards. According to Nocera (2011) of The New York Times, for-profit colleges make most of their money by recruiting students from the poor and working class who must draw from federal funding to pay tuition. An article from The New York Times indicates one of the greatest criticisms of the for-profit college industry is that many schools 2
exaggerate the value of their degree programs by promising middle-class paying careers but delivering large amounts of debt and low-paying jobs (Goodman, 2010). Despite these claims it seems the industry is growing in its student population. Although he starts by calling out the industry, Nocera (2011) states that America desperately needs the for-profit college industry to succeed and that enrollment for these colleges increased 236% since 1998.
Stevens-Henager College is a nationally accredited college with four major programs in the fields of Business, Medical and Health Sciences, Graphic Arts, and Computer Technology. According to the company website, business, technical, and medical leaders have come to recognize Stevens-Henager College graduates for their superior training and their outstanding professionalism (www.stevenshenager.edu). Within the for-profit college industry, a common approach to a down economy is not to panic because it can often mean more people will go back to school in an effort to increase their own marketability. However, at Stevens-Henager College’s Provo/Orem, Utah campus enrollment rates are declining from month-to-month and drop-out rates are increasing. This has lead management to make two important adjustments: 1) to ask the question, “What is the public perception of our college?”, and 2) make a change in marketing strategies to target a more specified niche of potential students. Recently major marketing efforts have shifted to focus on a free-service course geared to help adults that did not graduate high school obtain their General Education Development certificate, or GED®. 3
Problem Statement and Research Questions
There has not been any significant research done regarding the public perception of Stevens-Henager College or the for-profit college industry, nor has Stevens-Henager College done any formal research to determine the market demands for the Utah County area. This program evaluation attempts to answer the following question: What is the public perception of for-profit/career colleges, and specifically Stevens-Henager College, within the Utah County, Utah area by those residents in need of a GED®?
Significance
An in-depth program evaluation of a local for-profit college has professional significance on two levels: academic and professional. The body of research available on for-profit colleges is not extensive and is lacking a direct study of public perception. As a business, Stevens-Henager College will find great value in feedback of this nature and in recommendations made based on actual data gathered from public surveys and interviews. The results of this program evaluation, and the recommendations made therein, will be crucial to the company’s decision making process for future marketing strategies, program development, and public relations efforts.
Overview of Methodology
In order for this study to be most effective, participants had to be chosen from a local population relative to the Provo/Orem campus of Stevens-Henager College. Participants in this study included students who are enrolled in the Stevens-Henager College GED® preparatory tutoring course. Participants were surveyed and interviewed regarding their perception of the for-profit college industry, and specifically Stevens-4
Henager College, at the beginning of their tutoring as well as upon completion of the course. Methods for gathering data included surveys and interviews.
Delimitations
Stevens-Henager College has many campuses spread out over multiple states. However, each campus operates as if it were its own college. Consequently, for the purposes of this study, only the areas designated within the jurisdiction of the Provo/Orem campus will be of concern. Participants came exclusively from those students enrolled in the GED® tutoring course at the Provo/Orem campus. Accordingly, the results of this study only reflect this region’s public opinion and may not be accurate in other areas. In addition, the term “public” was used to refer to the portion of the public as a whole who did not graduate high school and are in need of a GED® certificate. This is due to the fact that Stevens-Henager College is specifically targeting this population with its marketing efforts.
The author of this study is an employee of Stevens-Henager College. He is employed as the Coordinator of GED® Services for the Provo/Orem campus and also acts as one of the class tutors. There was no conflict of interest as a result of the author’s employment by Stevens Henager-College as any information gained through this study in regards to public perception is only useful to the school if presented objectively and truthfully.
Conclusion
Prospective college students have many options for higher education. As with any business, it is important for colleges (especially for-profit colleges) to understand the demands of its marketplace. This program evaluation determined how GED® students 5
view career colleges, specifically Stevens-Henager College, relative to other post-secondary options. The following chapters will include a review of relative literature and an explanation of the methodology used in this study. 6
Chapter 2 Literature
According to my father, people didn’t necessarily go to college after high school graduation when he was growing up. Most people went on to trade jobs or joined the military, and if they did go on to get any type of higher education it was typically at a community college. Times have definitely changed since then: the prospective students of today have more options than ever before, and they are taking advantage of it.
Market for For-Profit Colleges
As early as the mid-1990’s it was estimated that more than 60% of all high-school graduates were going on to some sort of postsecondary education, 61% of college students worked, 56% of college students were female, and 42% of students only attended part-time as work and families became higher priorities (Levine, 1997). Today, more non-traditional students are attending college, and over 70% of enrolled undergraduates are working full-time (more than 30 hours/week) jobs while in college (Wolniak and Pascarella, 2007). Not only are there more students attending college today than ever before, but the type of student attending college and the type of school they are looking for has changed as well.
With advances in technology and changing demands by students and job markets, the type of education a college student can receive has evolved to provide opportunities that have not traditionally been available. Distance education and distributed instruction have freed education from being bound by time constraints and geographic locations, making education more flexible for the non-traditional student (Morey, 2004). Morey (2004) credits the needs of adult learners, rising tuition rates at traditional universities, 7
and the globalization of higher education for the emergence of for-profit higher education institutions as a viable sector for postsecondary education in America. She goes on to explain that the for-profit industry’s success comes from its ability to provide “active instructional strategies and at times and locations convenient to students” (p. 135). This fits the needs of the changing students and their desire for convenience and shorter time to degrees. Courses in the evenings and on weekends suit their needs and the practical orientation serves their career objectives (ibid, 2004).
In the United States alone, for-profit colleges enrolled 3.2 million students in 2009. Additionally in 2009, 84,000 students graduated from for-profit colleges with bachelor’s degrees. Graduate degrees almost doubled from the year before, going from 36,000 in 2008 to 67,000 in 2009 (Yeoman, 2011). Officials at many for-profit colleges believe their success is due to their ability to deliver an education that is more in sync with the needs of today’s job market than that of the education received from more traditional institutions (ibid, 2011). However, despite their growing numbers, for-profit colleges are almost always negatively compared to their counterparts: the non-profit, private, and public institutions.
Criticisms of For-Profit Colleges
One of the big differences between for-profit and non-profit institutions is that of accreditation. For-profit colleges are generally accredited by national agencies, whereas traditional colleges – particularly public institutions – are accredited by regional agencies. The major difference between the two types of agencies is the criteria for accreditation. National agencies focus primarily on quantitative factors such as completion and job-placement rates. Regional accreditation agencies look more at shared governance, 8
academic freedom, and standards. (Yeoman, 2011) In part because of this difference in accreditation, it is rare for credits to transfer between for-profit colleges and traditional universities (ibid, 2011).
Many for-profit colleges seek out higher levels of accreditation. However, accreditation agencies are unsure as to how to deal with the distinctively different missions of traditional schools versus for-profits. For-profit institutions provide an education to their students in order for the institution to make money, whereas traditional colleges accept money from multiple sources so that the institution is able to provide an education to a student population (Morey, 2004). The difference is subtle, but important. One industry is in the business of education, and the other has a mission to provide education (ibid, 2004).
It is precisely the business-model approach to education that has gotten the for-profit industry a bad reputation in some circles. Recently President Obama has cracked down on the for-profit industry by restricting any institution that receives federal student aid from connecting admissions recruiters’ earnings to enrollment numbers (Goodman, 2010). This is in response to a number of critics of the industry claiming unethical marketing practices. Many schools have been accused of recruiters exaggerating the value of their degree programs (ibid, 2010). Aggressive recruiters bait students with promises of high-paying careers, and use the idea of greater future-income as justification to accumulate large amounts of student-loan debt (Goodman, 2010; Yeoman, 2011).
The topic of student-loan debt is one of the greatest catalysts for criticism against the for-profit college industry. Student-loan default rates are often used to measure whether or not students are landing in good-paying jobs after graduation (Yeoman, 2011). 9
Twenty-four percent of for-profit colleges have a three-year default rate of 30% or higher, compared to a combined 1% of non-profit private schools and public institutions that have a 30% or higher default rate (ibid, 2011).
For-profit colleges enrolled 12% of our nation’s college students in 2011, but used almost 25% of the federal government’s student-aid budget (Nocera, 2011). Critics point out that for-profit colleges make their money by recruiting students that are primarily from the poorer working-class and who will almost always need student-loans and grants to pay for college (ibid, 2011). The problem is that, of those students who borrowed financial-aid to go to a for-profit college and were actively paying those loans back in 2009, 47% went into default in 2010 (ibid, 2011).
One explanation for the high default rates can be explained by the population that customarily makes up the student body of for-profit colleges. Many of the students who attend for-profit colleges are the first in their family to ever attend college, and first-generation students have the highest drop-out rates (Clark, 2011). Students who drop-out of college have much higher loan-default rates than those who do graduate and are able to enter the workforce with a college degree (ibid, 2011).
Many critics point out that for-profit colleges do not graduate enough of their student population to justify how much federal student aid is used at those institutions. Yeoman (2011) references a September, 2010 report filed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee noting that between the sixteen for-profit colleges studied, 57% of the students who enrolled between July, 2008-June, 2009 had already dropped out of school. According to Yeoman (2011), those same colleges received 87% of their revenue in 2009 from federally-funded student aid. 10
Business Model of For-Profit Colleges
Another explanation for high drop-out rates can be explained by how for-profit colleges structure their businesses. Gansemer-Topf and Schuh (2006) did an in-depth study examining how organizational factors such as selectivity and expenditures contributed to retention and graduation rates. On the topic of selectivity, the authors were clear:
Colleges and universities with high selectivity ratings enroll students with higher standardized test scores, high school grade point averages, and high school rank than institutions with lower selectivity ratings and as a result, may have higher retention and graduation rates regardless of how they allocate their resources (Astin, Korn, & Green in Mayer-Foulker, 2002, p. 614).
Gansemer-Topf and Schuh’s 2006 study also showed that the way an institution allocates its resources directly influences student retention and graduation. The outcomes of the study showed statistical significance in predicting retention and graduation rates as follows: Expenditures in areas such as instruction and institutional grants positively contributed to first-year retention rates, whereas expenditures in student services contributed negatively (ibid, 2006). In addition to instruction and institutional grants, expenditures in academic support positively contributed to six-year graduation rates, whereas institutional support contributed negatively. The authors stress that further examination needs to be done in the activities that make up student services and institutional support to determine how they affect student retention (ibid, 2006). 11
The Need for For-Profit Colleges
Despite its many criticisms, the for-profit college industry appears to be here to stay. It has grown from a relatively niche market specializing in trade-job education to a $5 billion industry (Morey, 2004). Some researchers argue that the country can’t afford to put it (the for-profit college industry) out of business (Nocera, 2011). They point out the increasingly expensive state universities and overcrowded community colleges (ibid, 2011) and that many for-profit college students wouldn’t be accepted anywhere else (Morey, 2004). Nocera even goes so far as to say, “A well run for-profit college could teach its non-profit counterparts a thing-or-two about efficiency and innovation” (2011, para.11).
Gaps in the Literature Regarding For-Profit Colleges
The literature on for-profit colleges is extensive in some areas, but lacking in others. The majority of what is available primarily focuses on the differences between for-profit colleges and traditional universities, the success rates of for-profit colleges, and the amount of federal aid that is being used at for-profit colleges. Where the available literature seems to be lacking is a comprehensive study on how the public perceives the for-profit college industry. The purpose of this study was to identify what the perceptions of for-profit colleges (in general and specifically Stevens-Henager College) are from the perspective of a GED® student, and to determine how that perception is influenced by marketing and advertising.
Program Evaluation
This study intended to fill a portion of the gap in available literature regarding the for-profit college industry by conducting a summative outcome evaluation of the 12
marketing practices of Stevens-Henager College in Utah County, Utah. This study was designed as a program evaluation due to the distinct difference between research and evaluation. Evaluation is a type of inquiry that uses similar tactics as research, but its purpose is to improve a program’s effectiveness in a specific situation; whereas, the purpose of research is to prove the effectiveness of a program in generalized situations (Priest, 2001, & Healy, 2000). An evaluation is designed to judge the worth of a program and determine if it should continue, be modified, or be eliminated (Tener, 2009 & Healy, 2000).
The purpose of any program evaluation is to provide the necessary information for stakeholders to make decisions. The key difference between evaluation and research, and one reason program evaluation is an effective tool in decision making, is the lack of generalizing done by evaluation (Priest, 2001). The results of an evaluation cannot be used to make generalizations regarding other programs, but can suggest that a program has a history of being effective in specific past settings (ibid, 2001).
The reasons for doing an evaluation of a program are dictated by the demands of the program which can be classified into one of three categories: accountability, improvement, or marketing (Priest, 2001). This study focused on marketing demands because of its connection to public perception. Marketing demands focus on the effectiveness of past advertising and indicate a collective track record of successful programming (ibid, 2001). Priest simplifies marketing as the “external demand of demonstrating that programs can work” (p. 36). 13
Chapter 3 Methodology
The purpose of this study was to gain a clearer understanding of the public perception of GED® students regarding one of the community’s local for-profit colleges (Stevens-Henager College) and the industry in general. In addition, the study’s original intention was to provide information pertaining to the public’s reaction towards Stevens-Henager College’s marketing campaigns and their demand for specific program options. Recommendations will be made to Stevens-Henager College based on the data that were collected and the analysis thereof. Because there will be a report of the findings given to Stevens-Henager College, the most fitting method of research was an evaluation study using mixed-methods strategies.
Program Evaluation Model
Priest (2001) laid out five basic models of evaluation. The model that best fit the purpose of this study is that of “Outcome Evaluation”. Outcome evaluations can be used to measure if clients and customers are satisfied with the products and performances provided by a program. The results of outcome evaluations may be used to justify overall effectiveness and to suggest areas of program improvement (ibid, 2001). Additionally, this study was done as a summative evaluation as the results will be presented to external decision makers who are not part of the programs being evaluated (Healy, 2000).
This internal program evaluation used multiple sources for data and multiple means of collection. Using multiple sources and means of collection provides a broader perspective and the credibility of the evaluation is enhanced (Tener, 2009). 14
Context and Participants
This study focused on the perceptions of the community within Utah County, Utah and some of its outlying communities (Nephi, Utah and Heber City, Utah). This was done in order to align the research with the geographic territory of the Provo/Orem Campus of Stevens-Henager College. Participants throughout the targeted area included individuals who signed up for Stevens-Henager College’s GED® tutoring course as well as graduates from that course.
Instruments
The instruments used in this study (which can be found in Appendix A) were designed in an effort to identify the perceptions of Stevens-Henager College, and the for-profit college industry in general, by non-high school graduates. However, within that specific group exists tremendous variation in demographics. Many of the survey questions, and to a lesser degree the interview questions, were designed to identify demographic information.
Some of the questions found in the Pre-Program Survey were used to determine the demographics of the sample population studied. Out of the 122 Pre-Program Surveys given, 103 were completed in their entirety. Only fully-completed surveys were included in the data analysis. Demographic information about the participants provided important perspectives when considering the findings relative to the research question. For example, although the gender ratio was fairly even (53% of participants surveyed were male, while 47% were female); the age distribution – illustrated in Table 3.1 – of our sample population was not as evenly distributed. Notice that although there is a large range in age with the youngest participant being 18 and the oldest 52, the median age is 15
only 22 years old. Such a low median score means that the younger half of the participants fell within a 4-year span, while the older half fell within a 29-year span.
Table 3.1
Participant Age Statistics
ϻ
25
SE
0.71
Ϻ
22
Mode
18
σ
7.20
Range
34
Minimum
18
Maximum
52
In addition to items such as gender and age, many of the instrument questions were designed to identify the attitudes of participants toward college in general or what kind of familiarity they might already have with the college industries. A more complete examination of the demographic statistics gathered will be discussed in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 5.
Data Collection and Analysis
The majority of the data collected in this study were gathered via survey. In addition to surveys, the researcher also interviewed participants, as well as took note of general observations about Stevens-Henager College and its marketing and administrative practices. Stevens-Henager College also provided data about their GED® student population (primarily demographic in nature). Descriptive statistics were primarily used to describe the quantitative data collected. Qualitative analyses of any open-ended responses given in surveys and interviews revealed themes and patterns that were coded for further clarity. All data were kept confidential. 16
Chapter 4 Results
The Research Question driving this study was simple: What is the public perception of for-profit/career colleges, and specifically Stevens-Henager College, within the Utah County, Utah area by those residents in need of a GED®? The various instruments used contained 9 questions that directly pertain to the Research Question. These questions will be referred to as “Directly Related Questions” from this point forward. As noted in Chapter 3, not all of the instrument questions addressed the Research Question directly. Many questions existed to gain information regarding the demographics and preexisting understanding or feelings toward college in general. These questions will be referred to as “Background Questions” from this point forward.
Directly Related Questions
This chapter will be divided into individual sections devoted to each Directly Related Question separately. There will also be one section devoted to the Background Questions as a group. This chapter will only present the findings as they have been analyzed. Additional charts and tables that do not appear in this chapter can be found in Appendix B and the raw data collected can be found in Appendix C. In addition, a more complete discussion of the findings analysis will follow in Chapter 5.
It is important to note that not all surveys taken were included in the analysis of the data collected. Only those surveys that were completed fully were accepted and factored into the analysis. Although 122 pre-surveys were taken, 19 were not completed fully and not included. 107 post-surveys were taken and 6 were not completed fully. All of the interviews were included. 17
The Pre-Program Survey administered had 15 questions in total including items of interest such as Age and Gender. However, only results from questions 5, 9, and 11 are described below because they are the only questions that produced information directly related to the Research Question. Similarly, only results from questions 3 and 4 on the Post-Program Survey are evaluated for the same reason. All four of the Interview questions are included as they all pertain directly to the Research Question.
Pre-Program Survey Question 5
Pre-Program Survey Question 5 asks: In your opinion, is a degree from a for-profit college – such as Stevens-Henager College – just as valuable as a degree from a “traditional” university such as UVU or BYU? Participants were given the option of marking “Yes” or “No” to this question. All of the participants live within relatively close proximity to all three colleges referenced, and none of the participants had to ask for clarification on this question. Subsequently, it is assumed that all participants are familiar with each college referenced.
Of the 103 participants surveyed, 84% indicated that a degree from a for-profit college – such as Stevens-Henager College – was just as valuable as a degree from a traditional university such as UVU or BYU. Eighteen percent of participants indicated otherwise. All participants answered this question. Given the qualitative nature of this question, no analysis was used in an attempt to identify any significant correlations.
After initial analyses of the findings were done, the data were broken down further based on Age and Gender. There was a slight decrease in positive responses (9 percentage points down to 73%) in the 18-20 year-old group and a slight increase (5 percentage points up to 87%) in the 21-29 year-old group. 18
Pre-Program Survey Question 9
Pre-Program Survey Question 9 asks: How would you compare Stevens-Henager College to the other local for-profit colleges (Broadview, Eaglegate, Provo College, etc.)? Options were given to mark “Worse than other schools”, “Just the same”, and “Better than other schools”.
Out of 103 participants surveyed, 67% indicated that Stevens-Henager college was just the same as its local competitors, 31% indicated that it was better, and only 2% indicated that it was worse. Further analysis was done on this question to break down the participants by age and gender, and as with the previous question there was not a significant amount of variation within the older age group, nor with either of the gender groups. However, the younger age group’s “Better” responses dropped seven percentage points and were redistributed with a four percentage point increase in “Worse” responses and three percentage points in “Same”. In contrast, the middle age group had zero “Worse” responses, showed a decrease of three percentage points in “Same” responses, and an increase in “Better” responses of five percentage points.
Pre-Program Survey Question 11
Pre-Program Survey Question 11 asks: Rank each of the following schools according to which graduates you think probably get the best jobs simply because they graduated from that school. Participants were then given spaces to provide a ranking from 1-4, with one being the best, next to each of the following four schools: UVU, BYU, Stevens-Henager College, and University of Phoenix.
To analyze the data collected on Question 11, each school’s ranking, or “votes”, was counted (for example, UVU received 29 1st place votes, 51 2nd place votes, 18 3rd 19
place votes, and 5 4th place votes). After tallying each campus’ votes a descriptive analysis was done to determine what the overall ranking of the schools would be. Because the scale used is a reverse-order scale, meaning that the lower the ranking the higher the perception of the school, the schools’ rankings would be described in the order of lowest scores.
The Mean scores, Mode scores, and Sum scores all resulted in the schools being ranked in the order of BYU, UVU, SHC, and UoP. BYU had by far the most 1st place votes with 67 (38 votes more than UVU which came in 2nd), a Mean score of 1.77, a Mode of 1, and a Sum of all votes at 182. Every school received at least 1 top ranking vote as well as at least 1 lowest ranking vote. Table 4.1 illustrates each schools ranking.
Table 4.1
Rankings According to Getting the Best Jobs
UVU
BYU
1st
29
ϻ
1.99
1st
67
ϻ
1.77
2nd
51
SE
0.08
2nd
9
SE
0.11
3rd
18
Ϻ
2
3rd
11
Ϻ
1
4th
5
Mode
2
4th
16
Mode
1
σ
0.81
σ
1.16
Σ
205
Σ
182
SHC
Phoenix
1st
14
ϻ
2.59
1st
20
ϻ
2.8
2nd
30
SE
0.09
2nd
22
SE
0.11
3rd
43
Ϻ
3
3rd
20
Ϻ
3
4th
16
Mode
3
4th
41
Mode
4
σ
0.91
σ
1.17
Σ
267
Σ
288
Note. Each college was given a ranking of 1-4. The numbers in the second column indicate how many votes for that ranking the college received. The descriptive statistics in the 3rd and 4th columns represent an analysis of each college’s total rankings. 20
Post-Program Survey Question 3
Post-Program Survey Question 3 asks: Has your experience in this GED® course changed your opinions toward SHC as a college option? Participants were given the option to mark “Yes” or “No” as well as space to explain their answer and a prompt to do so.
There were 101 completed post-surveys. Of them, 62% indicated that their experience in the GED® course changed their opinions of Stevens-Henager College. Thirty-eight percent said their opinions had not changed. As expected with qualitative data, there existed a lot of variance in responses. That being said, the three most common explanations given for a changed opinion of Stevens-Henager College were 1) The course inspired the participant to go on to college – 44%, 2) The course had great teachers – 25%, and 3) The course was easy and helpful – 13%. The three most common explanations given for not having a changed opinion were 1) Didn’t like Stevens-Henager College before and I still don’t – 55%, 2) Already liked it and I still do – 19%, and 3) I still do not have an opinion about Stevens-Henager College – 17%.
Of particular note is the statistics indicating that the number one “Yes” explanation (the course inspired the participant to go on to college) accounted for 27% of the total responses given. A good example of a common response is “I didn’t want to go here, but now I do because of the people.” In addition, the number one most common “No” explanation (Didn’t like Stevens-Henager College before and I still don’t) accounted for 21% of the total responses given with a typical answer being related to Stevens-Henager College’s limited program choices. 21
Post-Program Survey Question 4
Post-Program Survey Question 4 asks: If yes, (referring to the response to question number 3) have your opinions changed for the better or worse? Participants were given the option to pick “Better” or “Worse” as well as given space to explain their answer and a prompt to do so.
Despite the instructions to only answer Question 4 if the participant had marked “Yes” to the previous question, there were 73 responses filled out on the surveys instead of the expected 63. Of those 73 responses, 71 of them marked that their opinions changed for the better. The three most common explanations were 1) Overall good experience – 72%, 2) Great teachers – 34%, and 3) I learned a lot – 17%. There was only one response given for an explanation of a marked response of “Worse” and that was that the participant felt Stevens-Henager College’s college credits did not transfer.
This question had significantly more variation within its responses than the previous question. In order to define the three most common themes, the author had to use very broad categories. For example, a participant responded that the course “Helped me realize how to succeed”. Such a response was the only such response of its kind and was considered the product of having an overall good experience. Whereas, a response of “Made it easy to learn” was not common enough to justify its own categorical theme either and was subsequently included in with other responses that would be representative of great teachers.
Interview Question 1
Interview Question 1 asks: Do you know the difference between a for-profit college and what would be considered a “traditional” university? Participants would 22
simply answer yes or no. Those who answered yes explained the differences were primarily about educational approaches, financial differences, or accreditation differences. If a participant answered “No”, the following explanation of the difference was used:
There are many differences between the two. For the purposes of this interview, the primary differences are 1) Often times for-profit colleges are more expensive, 2) Often times for-profit colleges are faster, and 3) Traditional universities usually focus more on a “well-rounded” education and offer a number of general education courses that can take as many as 8 semesters or more to complete before you go on to your selected major’s core classes. Whereas for-profit colleges, often referred to as career-colleges, typically spend less time on general education courses and more time on classes that are directly related to the careers students are preparing for.
Only 4 of the 12 participants interviewed indicated in advance that they knew the difference between for-profit colleges and traditional universities. Of those 4, 2 were men and 2 were women, 3 were students who had gone on from the GED® and enrolled in Stevens-Henager College, and the fourth participant was a current GED® student and indicated no desire to enroll in Stevens-Henager College in the future. All other questions from the interviews were analyzed according to the two separate groups “Knew the Difference” and “Did Not Know the Difference”. 23
Interview Question 2
Interview Question 2 asks: How would you compare a degree from a for-profit college like Stevens-Henager College to a degree from a traditional university like UVU? The participant responses were grouped again by whether they knew the differences between the two college types before the interview or not. Responses generally fit into three primary categories. The first category, which had 14 total responses, is summarized as “Traditional University degrees are better”. The second category, which had 12 total responses, is summarized as “For-profit college degrees are better”. The third and final category, which had 6 total responses, is summarized as “The degrees are the same”. There were 14 total responses that were determined to be favorable toward traditional university degrees, 12 responses that were favorable toward for-profit college degrees and 6 responses that did not favor one over the other. An example of a response from the interviews that would be coded into its respective category is as follows:
Table 4.2
Response Examples for Interview Question 2
Example
Favored
Degrees from bigger, more well-known, schools are better.
Tradition university degrees
For-profit college degrees put more emphasis on the major instead of general education courses.
For-profit college degrees
One might be better than the other, but it depends on the field of study.
Neither as being better
Within the Knew the Difference group 2 participants responded that traditional university degrees were better, 1 responded that they were the same, one reported that in this particular participant’s opinion they were the same but society thinks traditional 24
university degrees are better. None of the four participants in this group thought for-profit degrees were better and 2 of the 3 participants who indicated that traditional university degrees are better are enrolled at Stevens-Henager College.
Within the Didn’t Know the Difference group only 1 participant indicated that traditional university degrees were better, 5 indicated that for-profit college degrees were better, and 2 that they were the same. Of this group, only two participants were enrolled in Stevens-Henager College and their responses were split between the for-profit college degrees being better and the degrees being the same. All the other participants were enrolled in the GED® tutoring course.
Interview Question 3
Interview Question 3 asks: Do you think it matters where you go to college when it comes to actually getting a job? Explain your answer. The participant responses were grouped again by whether they knew the differences between the two college types before the interview or not. All four participants in the Knew the Difference group indicated that employers care where your degree comes from. Within the Didn’t Know the Difference group, four participants indicated that employers cared and 3 indicated that employers do not care. As with the previous question, the two members of the Didn’t Know the Difference group that are enrolled at Stevens-Henager College were split with one response that employers care and one that employers do not care.
The responses within each theme (employers care or do not care) were further coded into themes. Of which, 19 responses indicated that for some reason employers would care, whereas only 9 responses indicated otherwise. An example of a response from the interviews that would be coded into its respective category is as follows: 25
Table 4.3
Response Examples for Interview Question 3
Example
Coded
More prestigious schools with greater recognition have more credibility with employers and look better on a resume.
Employers care
No one cares where you got your degree as much as they care that you have one at all.
Employers do not care
Interview Question 4
Interview Question 4 asks: In your opinion, what are the greatest downsides to for-profit colleges? The participant responses were grouped again by whether they knew the differences between the two college types before the interview or not. All of the responses were coded into the following themes:
A. They are only for students who can’t get into “real” schools
B. Their degrees aren’t good for long-term goals
C. None
D. Financial Issues (cost, financial aid, etc.)
E. Job Placement Issues
F. Not well known/Low perception
G. Not well-rounded education
Most participants gave responses that included statements which could be coded in more than one theme. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 show the distribution of each of the themes within the two groups.
26
Figure 4.1 Downsides of For-Profit Colleges by “Knew the Difference” Group
Figure 4.1. The breakdown of responses for Question 4 of those participants who knew the difference between a for-profit college and traditional university prior to interview.
Figure 4.2 Downsides of For-Profit Colleges by “Did Not Know the Difference” Group
Figure 4.2. The breakdown of responses for Question 4 of those participants who did not know the difference between a for-profit college and traditional university prior to interview.
A: 14%
B: 14%
C: 0%
D: 29%
E: 14%
F: 29%
G: 0%
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:
A: 6%
B: 0%
C: 13%
D: 25%
E: 44%
F: 6%
G: 6%
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:27
Background Questions
Many Background Questions were asked in the surveys and interviews for the purpose of gaining greater insight to the demographics of our sample population. Questions consisted of typical demographic identifiers such as Age, Gender, and the City You Live In. Additionally, questions were asked concerning their background and how they view college in general. Topics for additional background questions included:
 Did your parents go to college
 Do you intend to go to college
 How does graduating from college affect someone
 How serious have you thought about college
 Why didn’t you graduate from high school
 Why do you want your GED® at this time
 How important is college to you
The post survey included similar questions for the same purpose:
 Now that you have your GED® do you plan to go to college
 How has your experience in the course effected your academic confidence
Due to the fact that these questions do not directly relate to the Research Question, this section will only present the more noteworthy analysis results from these questions. More complete illustrations of the data collected and the analysis of it can be found in Appendix B.
The sample population indicated that 45% of participants had at least one parent attend or graduate college. The data were broken down and analyzed further by age group and gender to see if any significant points of interest could be found. 28
The vast majority of participants (94%) indicated that they intended to go on to college, and 96% of participants believe that graduating college will change a person’s life for the better. However, only 64% indicated that going to college was “Very important” to them. When asked to rank how seriously they have thought about going to college, less than half (46%) marked a score of 5 on a Likert Scale with values ranging from 1-5 with a 1 meaning “Never planned on college” and a 5 meaning “Definitely Planned on college. Additionally, only 50% of participants indicated that their primary motivation for getting their GED® was to be able to go on to college.
When comparing the pre-survey attitudes towards college with the post-survey attitudes, some interesting data points emerged. Eighty-seven percent of participants indicated on the post-survey that they plan on going on to college representing a seven percentage point drop from the pre-survey. However, when asked how the GED® experience had affected their academic self-esteem, 93% indicated it had improved, 7% indicated it had not changed, and no participant marked that it had decreased.
The data were broken down and analyzed further by age group and gender to see if any significant points of interest could be found. As mentioned earlier, 94% of participants indicated they intended to go to college someday. Of the 6 participants that indicated otherwise, all but one were in the highest (30-50+) age category. Of those 5 who indicated they did not intend to go to college, 3 were female and 2 were male. When asked how graduating college would affect their lives, only male participants indicated that it would make no difference.
When Pre-Survey Question 8 (asking about motivations for getting the GED®) was broken down into Age and Gender groups, each group’s results mirrored the total 29
results with very little variance. The only exception to this was the 30-50+ age demographic. Within that group the results showed a 12 percentage point drop (compared to the total participant results) in responses indicating college as the primary motivation for getting their GED®, a six percentage point drop for their job, and a two percentage point drop for military. However, the option of “Other” as a primary motivating factor increased 20 percentage points.
Pre-Survey Question 10 (asking about the importance of college) had similar results when broken down as Question 8. Most categories stayed consistent with total group results. However, the middle age group (21-29) showed a 13 percentage point higher result than the total group in answers marked indicating that getting a college education was very important. As with the previous question, the highest age group (30-50+) showed the most variation from the total group results. There were 22 and 12 percentage point increased differences in responses indicating college would make no difference and college is important, respectively. The greatest difference was found in that same group (30-50+) when it came to answers marked “Very Important”. The other two age groups marked college as very important 73% of the time, whereas the oldest age group only marked it 30% of the time.
Women were the only group that varied from the total on Pre-Survey Question 2. The total group indicated that 45% of the participants had at least one parent attend or graduate from college. However, when separated by gender, women as a group only had 38% of the participants had at least one parent attend or graduate from college.
30
Chapter 5 Discussion
Prospective college students have many options for higher education. As with any business, it is important for colleges (especially for-profit colleges) to understand the demands of its marketplace. This program evaluation provided insight as to how GED® students view career colleges in general, and specifically Stevens-Henager College, relative to other post-secondary options.
In this chapter, the results of the analysis presented in Chapter 4 will be discussed for meaning and implications. Interpretations of the data will be presented, as well as a discussion of the limitations of this study. In the “Discussion of Results” sub-section, only the most significant results will be discussed. Finally, a brief discussion will be presented regarding any further research that could be done and questions that could be explored as a result of the findings of this study.
Problem Statement and Methodology Review
Prior to this study, there had not been any significant research done to determine how the local public may perceive Stevens-Henager College or the for-profit college industry. Subsequently, the Research Question that guided this internal evaluation study focused on finding out what the public perception of for-profit/career colleges, and specifically Stevens-Henager College, within the Utah County, Utah area is by one section of the college’s target demographic: those residents in need of a GED®.
Participants in this study included students who are enrolled in a Stevens-Henager College GED® preparatory tutoring course at the school’s Provo/Orem, Utah campus. 31
Participants were surveyed and interviewed at the beginning of their tutoring as well as upon completion of the course.
Results Summary
Two surveys were administered to participants. Only fully completed surveys were included in the data analysis. The Pre-Program survey had 103 fully completed surveys and the Post-Program survey had 101 completed surveys. Participants remained anonymous and there was no mechanism in place to align the Post and Pre-Program surveys together. Subsequently, the two surveys were treated as if filled out by completely different sample populations. In addition to the surveys, 12 participants were interviewed at various points during their involvement of the GED® tutoring course.
Directly Related Survey Questions
Of the participants surveyed, 84% viewed a degree from a for-profit college to be just as valuable as a degree from a traditional university and 98% of participants indicated that Stevens-Henager College was either better than or just as good as other local for-profit colleges. When ranking local colleges and universities according to which school’s degree would help you get the best jobs, participants voted Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University – both traditional universities – first and second respectively. Stevens-Henager College and University of Phoenix – both for-profit colleges, were ranked third and fourth respectively.
Survey results indicated that 62% of participants experienced a change in their opinions of Stevens-Henager College as a direct result of participating in the GED® tutoring course. Of those, 97% indicated the change in opinion was for the better. Just over a fourth (27%) of explanations for any change in opinions, positive or negative, was 32
attributed to being “inspired to go on to college”. Whereas, the next most common explanation for a changed opinion, again both positive or negative, was related to Stevens-Henager College having a limited number of college programs available to choose from.
Interview Results Summary
There were 12 participants interviewed; of which, only four participants indicated that they already knew the difference between a for-profit college and a traditional university. Three of the four who previously knew the difference between college types believe traditional university degrees to be better, including two participants who were enrolled at Stevens-Henager College at the time of the interview. Of the remaining eight participants, only one indicated that traditional university degrees were better while five said for-profit degrees were better, and one said they were the same. Two of the participants who did not know the differences between college types were enrolled in Stevens-Henager College and one of them said traditional university degrees were better.
Participants were asked follow-up questions to give them an opportunity to expound on their opinions towards the two college groups. Within the responses were 19 comments indicating that participants believe employers care about where a college degree comes from; or in other words, employers care what college an interviewee graduated from. In addition, participants who knew the difference between the two colleges in advance reported financial issues (such as tuition costs) and the fact that for-profit colleges are not well known or have a low perception by employers (both accounted for 29% of the responses) as the two biggest downsides to for-profit colleges. 33
Participants who did not know the difference prior to being interviewed said that job placement issues were by far the biggest downside with 44% of the responses.
Background Questions
The sample population who participated in the pre-survey reported that 55% of them did not have at least one parent attend or graduate from college (See Appendix B). When the same results were broken into gender groups, the percentage increased seven points in the female demographic.
When asked on the pre-survey, 94% of participants said that they intended to go on to college someday and 96% of participants believed that graduating college will change a person’s life for the better. However, only 50% of participants indicated that going to college was the primary motivator for getting their GED®. On the post-survey, only 87% of participants indicated that they planned on attending college someday even though the majority (93%) felt like their experience in the GED® course had increased their academic self-esteem.
Many of the results stayed consistent when broken into demographic groups based on age and gender. However, the most variance occurred with the highest age group which consisted of participants between the ages of 30 and 50+. Five of the six participants who initially said they did not intend to go to college someday were in the highest age group. Additionally, 34% of the highest age group reported “Other” as the primary reason for getting their GED® (instead of Job, College, or Military) compared to only 7% and 10% of the lower two age groups. The study also showed that 30% of the oldest age group does not believe college will make a difference for them compared to only 2.5% of the younger two groups. 34
Discussion of Results
The purpose of any program evaluation is to provide the necessary information for stakeholders to make decisions. The results of an evaluation should not be used to make generalizations regarding other programs, but can suggest that a program has a history of being effective in specific past settings (Priest, 2001). The idea behind this particular program evaluation was to get a clearer picture of a sample population’s perception of a given industry. This could be considered a measure of the effectiveness of past marketing efforts. Further, the results of this evaluation could be used to identify the effectiveness of Stevens-Henager College’s GED® tutoring courses as a marketing strategy by evaluating the perception of its students toward the college sponsoring their tutoring.
Many of the students who attend for-profit colleges are the first in their family to ever attend college (Clark, 2011). The results of this study appear to support this, as a high percentage of participants (55% overall) would be first-generation college students if they went on to enroll somewhere. It is interesting to compare this particular result with the pattern found during the interviews. Seventy-five percent of the participants interviewed did not know the difference between a for-profit college and a traditional university. Two of the participants that were enrolled in a for-profit college still indicated that they didn’t know the difference. The interview sample size was relatively small with only 12 participants (compared to over 200 surveys) and it would be interesting to see if a larger sample size would produce similar results as well as see if correlations could be made regarding knowing the difference between college types and having had parents attend college. 35
Discovering that most of the participants in the interviews did not know the difference between college types was indeed an unexpected but potentially important finding. Survey results showed that 84% of participants viewed for-profit college degrees to be just as valuable as traditional university degrees. However, when participants ranked colleges based on which one would help the most on a resume when it comes to getting a job, the local traditional colleges won in a landslide. This suggests that either 1) participants responded to the question of degree value without truly knowing the differences between the college types, or the participants believe 2) regardless of actual value, employers care more about where you got your degree from than the quality of education you received while getting it. Interview responses support the latter; however, given the limited sample size more research in this area should be done.
The potential effects of participants’ ignorance when it comes to college types could impact their perception towards for-profit colleges, which in turn could dramatically impact decision making. If a prospective student believes the two college types provide the same kind of educational value, but one will make it easier to find a job, it might discourage them from exploring all of their available options for higher education because they fear there will be little to no return on their investment.
Participants who indicated they did not know the difference between the two college types at the time of interview responded that for-profit degrees were better than traditional university degrees at a 5:1 ratio. It is interesting to note that this response came after the differences were explained to them and not while they were still confused about the differences. Consequently, their opinions regarding the relative value of a for-profit degree compared to a traditional university degree could be in large part impacted by the 36
way the differences are presented to them and not by the actual differences themselves. If this is the case, it could leave prospective students of for-profit colleges vulnerable to unethical marketing practices. Many schools have been accused of recruiters exaggerating the value of their degree programs in an effort to increase enrollments (Goodman, 2010). In order to safeguard against this, it would be in the best interest of for-profit colleges to do further research into this topic. The sample size of this particular component of this study was too small to indicate strong results, but there existed enough data to warrant further research into this issue.
When participants were asked what the biggest downsides to for-profit colleges were, by far the most common response by those who did not know the difference between the college types was job placement issues. This suggests again that those who do not know the difference between college types still believe traditional universities will provide a better chance at employment. This could be a big problem for the for-profit industry as this sample population represents a large section of their target demographic.
Finally, this study provided some interesting findings regarding the GED® tutoring course as a marketing instrument. As discussed earlier, study participants initially indicated a high positive attitude towards the for-profit industry and an even higher perception of Stevens-Henager College when compared to its local for-profit competition. Ninety-eight percent of participants viewed Stevens-Henager College as better than or at least just as good as its local for-profit competition. However, as we just discussed, the perception seems to be that for-profit college degrees are not as valuable when it comes to getting a job as traditional universities. Consequently, the for-profit college industry has some work to do if that perception is to be challenged. 37
When participants were asked how their experience in the GED® tutoring courses impacted their opinions toward Stevens-Henager College, approximately two-thirds of them indicated that their opinions had changed as a result of being in the course. Of those, 97% indicated that change was positive and the most common reasons were that as students they became more inspired to go on to college and that the teachers were great. This has important implications as a marketing strategy because transitioning from a negative perspective to a positive one while being able to first-hand sample the educational experience is a priceless public relations return.
Despite the positive responses to the GED® tutoring program, the study also produced some negative results on college attitudes in general. Going into the program 94% of participants professed that they planned on going on to college someday. However, only half of them came into the course because of a primary motivation of wanting to go on to college. This suggests that many of them believe college is a good thing and they want to do it, but that it is not necessarily for them and they aren’t really planning on doing it. This information was then followed-up by post-survey results that indicated only 87% of the participants planned on going to college someday even though most of the participants gained greater self confidence in their abilities to be successful academically.
The decrease of participants planning on attending college in the future from the pre-survey to the post-survey suggests that some participants may have actually changed their minds about going to college during their tutoring course. When considering that many reported an increased academic self-esteem, it could be suggested that as a result of the tutoring process some participants were reminded that they do not enjoy school 38
despite being better at it. If this is the case, then using the GED® tutoring course as a marketing tool could be considered to have backfired with some students. Further research into this potential connection is definitely suggested.
So far the results have been discussed with the entire sample population in mind. However, when broken into separate groups according to Age, one particular age group produced very different results than the rest. The oldest age group studied, ranging in age between 30 and 50+ years of age (52 to be exact), included all but one of the participants who initially indicated no interest in going on to college. The study also showed this age group to be less motivated by college to get their GED® as well as having a more negative outlook on college’s impact on their lives than the younger participants. This suggests that targeting this particular age group with marketing efforts might be less productive than younger age groups.
Limitations
In hindsight, this study had a number of limitations that if addressed could have contributed significantly to the results. One such limitation is that the instruments used did not do an adequate job of identifying what influencing factors were most prevalent in shaping the participants’ perceptions of the for-profit college industry prior to the study. In an effort to identify the perceptions of the participants, knowing what marketing channels they had been exposed to would have added valuable insight to what factors shape perceptions.
A second limitation was discovered when correlation statistics were attempted. Numeric values were assigned to various optional answers and then Pearson Correlations were run in an effort to find significant relationships between responses. However, upon 39
closer examination of the instruments used in the study, it was determined that the available responses were inherently subjective and non-numerical by nature making it difficult to quantify properly. Consequently, none of the outcomes from the correlation analysis were taken into consideration when determining the significant results of this study.
A third limitation was discussed at length in the previous section. The sample size for the interviews administered was disproportionately small given the sample size of surveys administered. Consequently, it is difficult to confidently project any of the same patterns discovered in the results of the interviews onto the greater sample population from the surveys. However, the unexpected findings as a result of the interviews had value in that they illustrated the potential of a large part of the population not knowing the differences between the two college types showcased in this study.
A fourth limitation was that the surveys did not provide a baseline explanation of the differences between for-profit colleges and traditional universities. The questions referred to specific local examples of each type of college that participants recognized, but this does not mean that participants are familiar with the particulars of the institutions or the differences between them.
Recommendations in General and for Further Research
It is strongly recommended that further research into this topic be conducted. As stated in Chapter 2, the literature at large on this subject is lacking in comprehensive studies on how the public perceives the for-profit college industry. This study provided some useful insights, but the limitations of the study indicate that more information is available to provide a more accurate understanding. 40
Specific recommendations would include studying the differences in perception between individuals who know the difference between college types and those who do not know the difference. In conjunction with this, a study of prior knowledge – further research taking into consideration a participant’s family background with college in general – has the potential to have significant correlations. Also, a more complete study of the perceptions of for-profit colleges according to age group would be valuable information when developing marketing strategies.
Any future research should include a baseline explanation of the differences between college types if the study intends to compare the two as a means of understanding public perceptions.
Finally, as the results of the study indicated that participants gained academic self-esteem from their GED® courses, but also indicated the fewer participants planned on going to college after they completed tutoring, it is recommended that future research include a component that studies how students of such courses felt about being in school again. Determining if simply being in a school setting has a negative impact on a participants desire to go to college in the future could provide insights as to how these students perceive college and the college experience in general.
41
References
Clark, J. B. (2011). The real deal on for-profit colleges: Their reputation is tarnished, but
they can be a compelling alternative to traditional schools. Kiplinger's Personal
Finance, 65(5), 64-68.
Gansemer-Topf, A. M., & Schuh, J. H. (2006). Institutional selectivity and institutional
expenditures: Examining organizational factors that contribute to retention and
graduation. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 613-642. doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9009-4
Goodman, P. (2010, March 13). In hard times, lured into trade school and debt. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Healy, M.A. (2000). Knowing what works: Program evaluation. New Directions for
Student Services, 90, 57-65. doi: 10.1002/ss.9005
Levine, A. (1997). How the academic profession is changing, Daedalus, 126(4), 1-20.
Morey, A. I. (2004). Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 131-150.
Nocera, J. (2011, September 16). Why we need for-profit colleges. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Priest, S. (2001). A program evaluation primer. The Journal of Experiential Education,
24(1), 34-40.
Tener, R. (2009). The whys and hows of program evaluation. The Education Digest,
74(8), 63-64.
42
Wolniak, G. C., & Pascarella, E. T. (2007). Initial evidence on the long-term impacts of
work colleges. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 39-71. doi: 10.1007/s11162- 006-9023-6
Yeoman, B. (2011). The high price of for-profit colleges. Academe, 97(3), 32-37.
43
Appendix A: Instruments
It is important to note that instruments used in this study may at times refer to Stevens-Henager College’s GED® tutoring course as a “program”. After the administration of the survey’s and interviews it was made know to the author of this study that the GED® is not to be confused with one of the college’s programs and should be referred to as a “course” in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
The following instruments were used in this study and are included hereafter in Appendix A: Study Consent Form, Pre-Program Survey, Post-Program Survey, and an Interview Script.
44
Informed Consent Form
INFORMED CONSENT
Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates
Title of Study: Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates
Principal Investigator:
Brian Bean
Stevens-Henager College Department of GED Services
Utah Valley University Department of Graduate Studies
1476 South Sandhill Road
801-418-6629
brian.bean@stevenshenager.edu
Background:
You are being invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine how adult non-high school graduates perceive the for-profit college industry, particularly Stevens-Henager College, as it relates to other post-secondary educational options.
Procedure: Your expected time for this study is approximately 5-10 minutes. You will be asked to answer a series of survey questions at the beginning of your GED tutoring program and again upon completion of your program. You may also be asked to participate in an anonymous interview. If so, that will take approximately 15-20 additional minutes. Participation in this study is strictly voluntary and declining to do so will in no way affect your relationship with the researcher.
Risks: The risks of this study are minimal. These risks are similar to those you experience when disclosing work-related information to others. You may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate your involvement at any time if you choose. There may be some unforeseeable risks, but every effort to minimize those will be taken. Your success in the GED program will not be affected by this study.
Benefits: You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. There will be no cost, nor compensation for participation in this study.
Alternative Procedures: If you would prefer to participate by being interviewed without taking the survey, you may volunteer to do so by contacting the principle investigator, Brian Bean.
Confidentiality: Please do not write any identifying information on the survey. Your responses will be kept anonymous. Every effort to preserve your confidentiality will be made 45
by your researcher including assigning code numbers for each completed survey and interview.
Person to Contact: Should you have any questions about the research or related matters, or would like a copy of this form, please contact Brian Bean at brian.bean@stevenshenager.edu. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, contact the Institutional Review Board at 801-863-8156
Consent: By signing this consent form, I confirm that I have read and understood the information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I may be given a copy of this consent form upon request. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
Print Name: __________________Signature: ___________________
Date: ____________________
46
Pre-Program Survey
Age: __________ City you live in: __________ Gender: __________
1. What was the last grade level of school you completed? Circle one.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2. Did either of your parents attend or graduate from COLLEGE?
 Yes  No
3. After you get your GED finished, do you intend to go to college or any higher education program?
 Yes  No
4. Does graduating from college change a person’s life for the better, for the worse, or make no difference?
 Worse  No difference  Better
5. In your opinion, is a degree from a for-profit college – such as Stevens-Henager College – just as valuable as a degree from a “traditional” university such as UVU or BYU?
 Yes  No
6. Rate how seriously you’ve thought about going to college.
Never planned on college 1 2 3 4 5 Definitely planned on college
7. Which of the following best describes why you didn’t graduate high school?
Check all that apply.
 Grades  Attendance  Personal Problems  Family Problems  Other
8. What is your primary motivation for getting your GED at this time?
 To get a better job  To go to college  To join the military  Other
9. How would you compare Stevens-Henager College to other local for-profit colleges (Broadview, Eaglegate, Provo College, etc.)?
 Worse than other schools  Just the same  Better than other schools
10. How important is getting a college education to you?
 Not Important  Makes no difference  Important  Very important
11. Rank each of the following schools according to which graduates you think probably get the best jobs simply because they graduated from that school.
1 = Best jobs --- 4 = Worst jobs
UVU
Stevens-Henager College
BYU
University of Phoenix
12. Please use the back of this page to write any other thoughts or opinions that you have regarding the for-profit college industry, or specifically Stevens-Henager College, that may not have been addressed in this survey. Leave blank if you do not wish to share any additional opinions.
47
Post-Program Survey
1. Now that you have completed the GED program, do you plan on enrolling in college or some sort of higher education program?
 Yes  No
2. How has your experiences with this GED program effected your self-confidence when it comes to school and academics?
 I am now MORE confident in my abilities to succeed in school academically
 I am now LESS confident in my abilities to succeed in school academically
 My confidence level has not changed
3. Has your experience in this GED program changed your opinions toward SHC as a college option?
 Yes  No
3.a. Explain your answer:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. If yes, have your opinions changed for the better or worse?
 Better  Worse
4.a. Explain your answer:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 48
Interview Script
Age:
Gender:
City:
1. Do you know the difference between a for-profit college and what would be considered a “traditional” university?
a. If no – interviewer is to explain the differences and give examples of each as follows:
There are many differences between the two. For the purposes of this interview, the primary differences are 1) Often times for-profit colleges are more expensive, 2) Often times for-profit colleges are faster, and 3) Traditional universities usually focus more on a “well-rounded” education and offer a number of general education courses that can take as many as 8 semesters or more to complete before you go on to your selected major’s core classes. Whereas for-profit colleges, often referred to as career-colleges, typically spend less time on general education courses and more time on classes that are directly related to the careers students are preparing for.
b. If yes – interviewer should ask: “What are the major differences between the two?”
2. How would you compare a degree from a for-profit college like Stevens-Henager College to a degree from a traditional university like UVU?
3. Do you think it matters where you go to college when it comes to actually getting a job? Explain your answer.
4. In your opinion what are the greatest downsides to for-profit colleges?
49
Appendix B: Results Analysis, Additional Tables
There are included in this appendix multiple graphs and tables indicating some of the more interesting data points collected and analyzed in this study but that were not explicitly detailed within the chapters. In addition, the raw data collected are also present.
Tables Representing Data Analysis Results
Table A.1
Last Completed Year of School
Mean
11
Standard Error
0.13
Median
11
Mode
11
Standard Deviation
1.30
Minimum
2
Maximum
12
Table A.2
Did Either Parent Graduated from College
Total Sample
Male
Female
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
46
57
28
27
18
30
45%
55%
51%
49%
38%
63%
18-20 Years Old
21-29 Years Old
30-50+ Years Old
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
15
18
21
26
10
13
45%
55%
45%
55%
43%
57%
50
Table A.3
Intend to go to College
Total Sample
Male
Female
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
97
6
53
2
44
4
94%
6%
96%
4%
92%
8%
18-20 Years Old
21-29 Years Old
30-50+ Years Old
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
33
0
46
1
18
5
100%
0%
98%
2%
78%
22%
Table A.4
Does Graduating College Change Life
Total Sample
Male
Female
Same
Better
Same
Better
Same
Better
4
99
4
51
0
48
4%
96%
7%
93%
0%
100%
18-20 Years Old
21-29 Years Old
30-50+ Years Old
Same
Better
Same
Better
Same
Better
3
30
0
47
1
22
9%
91%
0%
100%
4%
96%
Note. Although "Worse" was an option, no participants marked it. Therefore, it was not
included in this table.
51
Table A.5
Is a For-Profit Degree as Valuable as Traditional University Degree
Total Sample
Male
Female
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
84
19
45
10
39
9
82%
18%
82%
18%
81%
19%
18-20 Years Old
21-29 Years Old
30-50+ Years Old
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
24
9
41
6
19
4
73%
27%
87%
13%
83%
17%
Table A.6
How Seriously Did You Think About Going to College
1
2
3
4
5
4
4
20
28
47
4%
4%
19%
27%
46%
Descriptive Statistics of Responses
ϻ
4
σ
1.08
SE
0.11
Min
1
Ϻ
4
Max
5
Mode
5
Note. Likert Scale options from 1-5. A score of 1 represents "Never Planned on College". A score of 5 represents "Definitely Planned on College".
Table A.7
Why Didn't You Graduate
Reason
Count
Percent of Total
Grades
35
19%
Family Problems
29
16%
Attendance
46
25%
Personal Problems
43
24%
Other
29
16%
52
Table A.8
Motivation to get GED
Job
College
Military
Other
Total Sample
45
66
3
19
34%
50%
2%
14%
18-20 Years Old
16
24
1
3
36%
55%
2%
7%
21-29 Years Old
21
31
2
6
35%
52%
3%
10%
30-50+ Years Old
8
11
0
10
28%
38%
0%
34%
Male
24
33
2
10
35%
48%
3%
14%
Female
21
33
1
9
33%
52%
2%
14%
Note. The first row of data for each demographic group represents the number of responses for that category. The second row of data represents the percentage of total responses for that category.
53
Table A.9
Comparing SHC to Other Local For-Profit Colleges
Worse
Same
Better
Total Sample
2
69
32
2%
67%
31%
18-20 Years Old
2
23
8
6%
70%
24%
21-29 Years Old
0
30
17
0%
64%
36%
30-50+ Years Old
0
16
7
0%
70%
30%
Male
1
36
18
2%
65%
33%
Female
1
33
14
2%
69%
29%
Note. The first row of data for each demographic group represents the number of responses for that category. The second row of data represents the percentage of total responses for that category.
Figure A.1a Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1a. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Worse 2%
Same 67%
Better 31%
Total Sample
Worse
Same
Better54
Figure A.1b Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1b. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Figure A.1c Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1c. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Worse 6%
Same 70%
Better 24%
18-20 Year Age Group
Worse
Same
Better
Worse 0%
Same 64%
Better 36%
21-29 Year Age Group
Worse
Same
Better55
Figure A.1d Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1d. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Figure A.1e Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1e. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Worse 0%
Same 70%
Better 30%
30-50+ Year Age Group
Worse
Same
Better
Worse 2%
Same 65%
Better 33%
Male Participants
Worse
Same
Better56
Figure A.1f Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1f. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Table A.10
How Important is a College Education
No Difference
Important
Very Important
Total Sample
9
28
66
9%
27%
64%
18-20 Years Old
2
8
23
6%
24%
70%
21-29 Years Old
0
11
36
0%
23%
77%
30-50+ Years Old
7
9
7
30%
39%
30%
Male
5
16
34
9%
29%
62%
Female
4
12
32
8%
25%
67%
Note. The first row of data for each demographic group represents the number of responses for that category. The second row of data represents the percentage of total responses for that category. Although "Not Important" was an option, no participants marked it. Therefore, it was not included in this table.
Worse 2%
Same 69%
Better 29%
Female Participants
Worse
Same
Better57
Appendix C: Raw Data
Pre-Program Survey
Survey #
Age
City
Gender
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
G
A
PP
FP
O 8 18 Orem F 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X 14 18 Lehi M 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 16 18 Orem M 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 42 18 SF F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X X X 44 18 Orem M 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 48 18 Eagle Mountain F 9 Yes Yes Better No 5 X X X 86 18 PG M 10 No Yes Better No 5 X X X X 97 18 PG M 11 No Yes Better Yes 3 X 106 18 Provo M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 107 18 Payson M 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 114 18 Provo M 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 115 18 Orem M 12 No Yes No Difference No 4 X 129 18 Lehi M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 x 4 19 Orem M 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 20 19 AF M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X 32 19 PG M 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 49 19 Lehi F 10 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 60 19 Lehi M 11 Yes Yes No Difference Yes 3 X 75 19 SF M 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 79 19 Mt. Pleasant F 11 Yes Yes Better No 4 X X 98 19 Orem M 12 No Yes No Difference No 3 X 99 19 Orem M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 100 19 Orem F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 118 19 Orem M 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 21 20 Provo F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 28 20 Lehi F 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 43 20 Provo F 11 Yes Yes Better No 3 X X X X 47 20 Eagle Mountain M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X X 55 20 Orem F 9 No Yes Better No 4 X 56 20 Saratoga Spr M 11 No Yes Better No 5 X 62 20 Lehi M 11 No Yes Better No 1 X 69 20 Lehi F 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 116 20 AF M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 1 21 Orem M 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 53 21 PG M 11 Yes Yes Better No 5 X 61 21 PG F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X 63 21 Lehi M 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X 58
70 21 Springville M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 77 21 Provo F 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X 82 21 Lehi F 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 87 21 Orem M 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 109 21 Santaquin F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 5 22 SF F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 35 22 Springville M 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X 38 22 AF M 10 No Yes Better Yes 3 X 41 22 Orem M 11 Yes Yes Better No 5 X X 50 22 Lehi M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 54 22 Orem F 11 No Yes Better No 4 X X X 68 22 Provo F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 90 22 Provo F 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 101 22 Orem F 12 No Yes Better Yes 3 X X 108 22 Payson F 9 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 112 22 Provo M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 123 22 Provo M 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 18 23 Salem M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 27 23 Riverton F 10 No Yes Better Yes 3 X 57 23 Orem M 9 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 78 23 Santaquin M 9 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X X 83 23 Nephi F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 84 23 Nephi M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 2 24 Lehi M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X X 26 24 Provo F 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 111 24 Provo M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 119 24 Lehi F 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 10 25 Orem F 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 103 25 PG M 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 104 25 Provo M 11 Yes Yes Better No 3 X 3 26 AF F 12 No No Better Yes 3 X 67 26 Eagle Mountain F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 74 26 Nephi F 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X 96 26 Lehi M 12 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 121 26 Orem M 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 58 27 Orem F 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 59 27 Provo F 12 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X X 113 27 AF F 10 No Yes Better No 5 X X 125 27 Payson F 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 81 28 Springville M 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 92 28 PG M 9 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 19 29 Orem M 11 Yes Yes Better No 5 X X X X 59
102 29 Provo F 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 6 30 PG M 2 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 7 30 AF F 9 No No Better Yes 3 X 34 30 Orem F 10 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 94 30 Orem F 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 71 31 Provo F 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 91 32 Provo F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X 30 33 Provo F 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X 73 33 Provo M 8 No Yes No Difference Yes 3 X X X X X 105 34 Orem F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 117 34 Orem M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 1 X X X 127 35 Lehi F 10 No No Better Yes 2 X X X X 128 35 Provo M 12 No Yes Better Yes 2 x x 37 36 AF M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 80 36 Lehi F 10 Yes Yes Better No 4 X 39 37 Herriman M 11 Yes No Better No 2 X 76 38 Lehi M 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 120 38 Springville F 11 No Yes Better No 5 X X 22 39 Springville M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 126 39 AF F 12 No Yes Better No 5 X 72 40 SF F 8 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 93 45 Bluffdale M 10 Yes No Better Yes 1 X 29 48 Provo F 9 No Yes Better Yes 1 X 31 52 Riverton F 12 Yes No Better Yes 2 X
Survey #
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
J
C
M
O
UVU
BYU
SHC
UoP 8 X X Better Important 1 1 2 2 14 X Same Very 1 1 1 1 16 X Same Very 1 3 2 4 42 X X Better Very 2 1 3 4 44 X Same Very 3 1 4 2 48 X Worse Very 2 1 3 4 86 X Better Very 2 1 4 3 97 X Better Very 2 1 2 2 106 X Worse Important 4 4 1 1 107 X X Better Very 4 4 4 4 114 X Better Important 1 3 2 4 115 X Same Very 3 4 1 2 129 x Same Very 3 2 4 1 4 X Same Important 3 4 3 4 20 X Same Very 2 1 2 2 60
32 X Better Very 3 1 4 2 49 X X Same Very 1 1 1 1 60 X Same Important 2 1 3 4 75 X Same Very 3 2 4 1 79 X Same Important 2 1 3 3 98 X Same No Difference 2 1 2 2 99 X X Same Important 2 1 2 2 100 X X Same Very 2 1 3 4 118 X Same Very 1 4 1 1 21 X X Same Very 1 1 1 3 28 X Same Important 2 2 2 2 43 X X X Same No Difference 2 1 3 3 47 X Same Very 1 3 2 4 55 X Same Very 1 1 3 3 56 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 62 X Better Very 2 1 3 4 69 X X Same Very 1 3 2 4 116 X X Same Very 1 1 4 4 1 X Better Very 1 3 2 2 53 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 61 X Same Important 3 4 2 1 63 X Same Important 3 1 2 4 70 X Better Very 3 3 3 3 77 X Same Very 2 1 3 1 82 X Same Very 1 2 3 4 87 X X Same Very 2 1 3 4 109 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 5 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 35 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 38 X X Better Important 1 3 4 2 41 X Same Very 1 3 4 2 50 X Same Important 2 1 3 3 54 X Same Important 1 2 4 3 68 X Better Very 2 1 3 3 90 X X Same Very 3 3 3 2 101 X X Better Very 1 1 1 1 108 X Better Very 2 1 3 4 112 X Better Important 3 1 2 4 123 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 18 X Same Very 2 3 2 3 27 X Same Very 1 4 3 2 57 X Better Very 1 4 2 3 61
78 X X Better Important 1 4 3 2 83 X X Same Very 3 1 4 2 84 X Same Important 2 1 4 3 2 X Better Very 2 4 3 2 26 X Better Very 2 4 1 3 111 X Better Very 2 1 3 4 119 X Same Very 2 4 3 1 10 X Better Very 2 1 2 4 103 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 104 X Same Important 2 1 3 3 3 X Better Very 1 1 1 1 67 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 74 X X Same Important 3 4 2 1 96 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 121 X X Better Very 2 1 3 4 58 X Same Very 2 1 2 2 59 X X Same Very 1 1 1 1 113 X X Same Very 2 1 4 3 125 X Same Important 2 4 3 1 81 X X X Same Very 1 1 1 1 92 X Better Very 2 1 3 4 19 X X Same Very 2 1 3 4 102 X Better Very 4 3 2 1 6 X Same No Difference 2 1 3 4 7 X Same No Difference 1 1 1 1 34 X Better Important 3 1 2 4 94 X Same Very 1 2 4 3 71 X Better Important 2 1 3 4 91 X X Same Very 1 1 1 1 30 X Same Important 2 1 3 4 73 X Same No Difference 2 2 2 2 105 X Better Very 3 4 2 1 117 X X X Same Important 1 1 1 1 127 X X Same No Difference 2 1 3 4 128 x x Same Important 2 2 2 2 37 X Same Important 4 1 2 3 80 X Same Very 2 1 4 3 39 X Better No Difference 2 1 3 4 76 X X Better Very 2 1 3 4 120 X Same Important 2 1 4 3 22 X Same Important 3 1 2 4 126 X Better Very 1 2 3 4 62
72 X Same Very 1 1 2 2 93 X Same No Difference 3 4 2 2 29 X Better Important 3 1 2 4 31 X Same No Difference 4 1 2 3
Post-Program Survey
Survey #
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q3a Theme
Yes
No
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
No
More
No
Never heard of SHC prior to this program
X
2
Yes
More
No
SHC doesn't have the program of interest
X
3
No
More
No
Always thought of it as a good school
X
4
Yes
More
Yes
Showed how nice it would be to attend here
X
X
5
Yes
More
No
Wanted to go here prior to starting GED course
X
6
Yes
More
Yes
Planning to attend SHC. We make it easy.
X
X
7
No
None
No
Not looked at SHC
X
9
Yes
More
Yes
Disorganized
X
10
Yes
More
Yes
Helpful and Nice. Cares about students.
X
11
Yes
More
Yes
Programs and school are good fit for me.
X
12
Yes
More
No
Don't know enough about SHC
X
13
Yes
More
Yes
Used to think it was a joke because of
commercials. Don't anymore.
X
14
Yes
More
Yes
Very positive school for helping people.
X
15
Yes
More
No
Don't have my program.
X
16
Yes
None
Yes
Admire SHC for having GED. Don't know about SHC.
X
X
17
No
More
No
Can't afford school and never will.
X
18
Yes
More
Yes
Very fast paced.
X
19
Yes
More
Yes
Interested in some classes
X
20
Yes
More
No
Don't have my program.
X
21
No
More
No
Great for GED. Only heard bad things about SHC
X
X
22
Yes
More
No
Want to attend. Want more information.
X
X
23
Yes
More
No
More confident in myself now.
X
X
24
Yes
More
Yes
Great teachers
X
25
No
None
No
SHC helps people get to college through the GED
X
26
Yes
More
No
Would go here if it had my program
X
X
27
Yes
More
Yes
I didn't want to go here, now I do because of the people
X
X
28
Yes
None
Yes
Would go here if it had my program
X
29
Yes
More
Yes
Great college. Would consider it in the future
X
30
Yes
More
Yes
Want free phlebotomy
X
31
Yes
More
Yes
Learn about furthering my education
X
32
Yes
More
Yes
Want to go to SHC
X
33
Yes
More
Yes
SHC wants to help the community
X
34
Yes
More
Yes
I love the GED program
X
35
No
More
No
Other plans
X
36
Yes
More
Yes
Helped me a lot
X
37
Yes
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
38
Yes
More
Yes
Showed me more options
X
39
Yes
More
Yes
Great teacher. Now I can go to college
X
40
Yes
More
Yes
More confident to go to college now
X
41
Yes
None
Yes
Very helpful
X
42
No
More
Yes
Good school. Love the help
X
44
Yes
None
No
Leaving Orem
X
45
Yes
More
No
Don't offer my program
X
63
46
Yes
More
No
SHC is not accredited
X
47
Yes
More
No
Want to go to MATC for Med Asst
X
48
Yes
More
No
Great school
49
Yes
More
Yes
Lots of help
X
51
Yes
More
Yes
I want to go to college now
X
52
Yes
More
Yes
Great teachers.
X
53
No
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
54
Yes
More
Yes
Doesn't have my program
X
55
Yes
More
Yes
Might be what I am looking for
X
56
No
None
Yes
I want to go to college now
X
57
Yes
More
Yes
More familiar with SHC and its programs now
58
Yes
More
No
Always seemed like a good college
X
59
Yes
More
No
Always seemed like a good college
X
60
Yes
More
Yes
Great teachers
X
61
Yes
More
No
Small college is good. Helpful people.
X
62
Yes
More
Yes
Great and helpful staff
X
63
Yes
More
Yes
Great teacher
X
64
Yes
More
Yes
SHC is better than people said it was
X
65
No
More
Yes
GED was great program. Easier than I thought
X
66
Yes
More
Yes
Want to learn more about programs
X
67
Yes
More
No
I always wanted to look at SHC
X
68
Yes
More
Yes
Doesn't have my program
X
69
Yes
More
Yes
SHC could be life changing for me
X
70
Yes
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
71
Yes
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
72
Yes
More
No
Just want my GED
X
73
Yes
More
Yes
Would go here if it had my program
X
75
No
More
Yes
Great teachers. Interactive classes.
X
76
Yes
More
Yes
Didn't know degrees were accepted nation-wide
X
78
Yes
More
Yes
More confident I can get a degree now
X
79
Yes
More
Yes
Way better than just a community college
X
80
Yes
More
Yes
Fun option
X
81
Yes
More
No
Already planned to attend SHC
X
82
Yes
More
Yes
Starting to lean towards looking at this school
X
83
Yes
More
Yes
My opinions changed. Great college with great teachers.
X
X
84
Yes
More
Yes
Unsure
X
85
Yes
More
No
Great school, but missing my program
X
86
Yes
More
Yes
Always planned on attending SHC
X
87
Yes
More
Yes
I've learned a lot in this class and don't want to stop
X
88
Yes
More
Yes
Great teachers. Good experience. Lots of help.
X
89
Yes
More
Yes
Want to come here now. Thought it was a bad before
X
90
Yes
More
Yes
SHC has become my 2nd choice after BYU
X
X
91
Yes
More
No
I am interested in learning more about SHC
X
92
Yes
More
Yes
Great teacher. One on one time is helpful
X
93
Yes
More
Yes
New view of college. More confident now.
X
94
No
More
Yes
Very helpful
X
95
Yes
More
No
Just interested in GED
X
96
Yes
More
No
doesn't have my program
X
97
Yes
More
Yes
Great GED program. Better than regular HS
X
98
Yes
More
No
Great GED but doesn't have my college interests
X
X
99
Yes
More
Yes
Seems to be a better option now
X
101
Yes
More
No
I think other colleges are better
X
102
Yes
More
No
Not interested in SHC
X
103
Yes
More
Yes
Fun, good environment
X
64
104
Yes
More
Yes
Nice staff that cares
X
105
Yes
More
Yes
Great program for SHC to have
X
106
Yes
More
Yes
SHC is an option for college now.
X
107
Yes
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
Survey #
Q4
Q4a Theme
Better
1
2
3
4
4
Better
Showed how much they care about their students
x
6
Better
Made it easy to learn.
x
9
Worse
10
Better
Helped with FA.
x
11
Better
Offers better career opportunities
x
13
Better
Good school
x
14
Better
Because the GED was free.
x
16
Better
Admire SHC for having GED. Don't know about SHC.
x
18
Better
Helped me realize how to succed
x
19
Better
20
Worse
Credits don't transfer.
x
22
Better
More programs than I expected
x
23
Better
24
Better
Good experience here
x
27
Better
I didn't want to go here, but now I do because of the people here
x
28
Better
Great teachers
x
29
Better
Great teachers
x
30
Better
I can't afford school, so I like free programs
x
31
Better
Free programs are good. Feedback from SHC students is bad.
x
32
Better
Good environment with good people
x
33
Better
Want to attend here now
x
34
Better
GED really makes SHC look good
x
35
Better
Taught me to get a career
x
36
Better
Learned a lot
x
38
Better
Inspired me to look into all options
x
39
Better
Much better opinion of SHC
x
40
Better
Want to get a career now
x
41
Better
42
Better
48
Better
49
Better
Friendly staff
x
51
Better
Want more out of life
x
52
Better
Now feel SHC is legitimate and professional school
x
54
Better
I want to go to college
x
55
Better
Thought about GED here, then UVU, but really like SHC
x
56
Better
57
Better
Learned about what it takes to do college
x
60
Better
Like the programs
x
61
Better
Great teachers
x
62
Better
Other schools don't try to help as much
x
63
Better
GED helped so much. SHC might have other programs that could help
x
64
Better
More programs than I expected
x
65
Better
I learned a lot
x
66
Better
Learned a lot about SHC
x
67
Better
I want to go to SHC
x
68
Better
I would suggest the SHC GED program to others
x
69
Better
Perfect match for my ADD
x
65
71
Better
I learned a lot
x
72
Better
Great teachers
x
75
Better
Because of GED I feel I could go to college at SHC
x
76
Better
Lots of FA help
x
78
Better
More confident I can get a degree now
x
79
Better
Better learning environment than most places
x
80
Better
Experience made me consider SHC for college
x
82
Better
Now I know more about SHC and am impressed
x
83
Better
Way more confidence now.
x
84
Better
I like it better
x
85
Better
Great administration
x
86
Better
More confident in myself now
x
87
Better
Great teachers
x
88
Better
Great college. Would like to continue here
x
89
Better
More confident in school now
x
90
Better
Great and helpful program
x
91
Better
Getting my GED will provide job opportunities
x
92
Better
I have learned a lot
x
93
Better
94
Better
Once I decide what to study, this is where I want to go
x
97
Better
Great GED program
x
99
Better
I learned more about college
x
103
Better
I learned a lot about SHC
x
104
Better
showed how much they care about their students, not just money
x
105
Better
Great that SHC didn't do a bait-and-switch
x
106
Better
Lots of options here
x
Interviews
Participant
Age
SHC Student
Gender
City
Q1
Q1b
Q2A
Q2B
Q2C
Q2D
Q2E
Q2F
Q2G
Q2H
Q2I
Q2J
1
19
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
20
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
12
32
2
2
2
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
18
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
19
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
22
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
30
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
8
46
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
32
2
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
10
29
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
18
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Totals:
4
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
2
66
"Did Know" Totals:
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
Participant
Q3A
Q3B
Q3C
Q3D
Q3E
Q3F
Q3G
Q4A
Q4B
Q4C
Q4D
Q4E
Q4F
Q4G
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
5
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
10
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
11
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Totals:
9
3
6
1
3
4
2
2
1
2
6
8
3
1
SHC Student Key:
Gender Key:
City Key:
Q1 Key:
Q1b Key:
1: Yes
1: Male
1: Orem
1: Yes
1: A - Approach to Education
2: No
2: Female
2: Springville
2: No
2: B - Financial Differences
3: C - Accreditation Differences
0: Blank
Q2 Response Key:
1: Marked
0: Blank
Q2A: For profit degrees are quicker (B)
Q2B: For profit degrees have more emphasis on major (B)
Q2C: Bigger/well known school degrees are better (A)
Q2D: Employers would prefer traditional degrees (A)
Q2E: Depends on the field of study (C)
Q2F: Greater Recognition at traditional (better perceived) (A)
Q2G: Traditional provides well-rounded education (A)
Q2H: Traditional Favored
Q2I: For-Profit Favored
Q2J: Neither Favored
Q3 Response Key:
1: Marked
0: Blank
Q3A: More prestigious/recognized (perceived credibility) colleges help on resume (A)
Q3B: Harder to get jobs with degrees from for-profit (A)
Q3C: Different industries will prefer different schools (A)
Q3D: No one cares where you got it, just that you have it (B)
Q3E: Skills are more important than degrees (B)
Q3F: Employers Care
Q3G: Employers don't care
67
Appendix D: IRB Approval
April 10, 2012
Mr. Bean:
You recently submitted for Institutional Review Board review a student research proposal entitled, “Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates.” Your study has been assigned the following IRB tracking number: #00867.
Based on the information provided on the application, and the reviewers' recommended changes you made to your protocols, your research proposal appears to pose "minimal" risks to human subjects and, therefore, meets the Federal criteria for an "expedited" review.
You herein have approval to begin your research from the UVU Institutional Review Board. This approval is good until April 3, 2013 (365 days from the date of approval). After this date, you will no longer be authorized to collect and analyze data unless you complete and submit a request for continuing status form. Multiple year studies must be reviewed and approved annually by the full IRB.
To ensure that individuals and organizations involved in your study are aware that you have received IRB approval, please use the IRB tracking numbers above on all documents and communications associated with this project as identification of IRB authorization (i.e., IRB Approval #00867).
Please notify Nancy L. Bartlett, the IRB Administrator, at (801) 863-8156, BA203d, of any changes made in the instruments, consent form, or research process, so the IRB can review and approve them before the change is implemented.
When you have completed your research, please notify the IRB. In keeping with Federal regulations, you must retain your research data for a period of 3 years from the date of completion of the research.
If you have any questions, please let us know. We wish you well with your research!
Dr. Glendon Parker, Chair
Institutional Review Board
Utah Valley University
800 West University Parkway
MS 179, Room LA11b
Orem, Utah 84058
(801) 863-6907
Glendon.Parker@uvu.edu
Nancy L. Bartlett
University Compliance Officer
IRB and Post-Award Grant Administrator
Division of Planning, Budget, and Policy
Utah Valley University
800 West University Parkway, MS272
Orem, Utah 84058
Room: BA203d
801-863-8156
Nancy.Bartlett@uvu.edu

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The author retains all copyright ownership. The right to download or print any of the pages of these theses is granted by the copyright owner only for personal or classroom use. The author retains all proprietary rights, including copyright ownership. Any reproduction or editing by any means mechanical or electronic without the express written permission of the copyright owner is strictly prohibited.

Utah Valley University
Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates
A project submitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree of
Masters in Education
in
Curriculum and Instruction
by
Brian T. Bean
Spring 2013
ii
Utah Valley University
Graduate Committee Approval
Of a project submitted by
Brian T. Bean
This project has been read by each member of the following graduate
Committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.
Date
Susan Simmerman, Chair
Date
Debora Escalante
iii
Abstract
The for-profit college industry is growing and industry officials believe their success is due to their ability to deliver an educational product that is more in sync with the needs of today’s job market than that of their competitors from traditional universities (Yeoman, 2011). Despite the growth in this industry, there has not been any significant research done specifically regarding the public perception of the for-profit college industry. This program evaluation focused on determining the public perception of a specific category of people living within or near Utah County, Utah regarding the for-profit college industry and specifically Stevens-Henager College. Participants in this study included students who are enrolled in a Stevens-Henager College GED® preparatory tutoring course at the school’s Provo/Orem, Utah campus. Participants were surveyed and interviewed at the beginning of their tutoring as well as upon completion of the course.
Most participants viewed for-profit college degrees favorably, but still believe that a degree from a traditional university is more valuable on a resume. A significant finding from this study indicates that additional research should be done to determine how many people within the target demographic know the difference between a for-profit college and a traditional university. This is important as the potential effects of participants’ ignorance when it comes to college types could impact their perception towards for-profit colleges, which in turn could dramatically impact decision making. Results also indicate that offering free GED® tutoring has the potential to be an effective marketing tool. iv
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement and Research Questions................................................................... 3
Significance.................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Methodology .............................................................................................. 3
Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 Literature ........................................................................................................... 6
Market for For-Profit Colleges ....................................................................................... 6
Criticisms of For-Profit Colleges .................................................................................... 7
Business Model of For-Profit Colleges......................................................................... 10
The Need for For-Profit Colleges ................................................................................. 11
Gaps in the Literature Regarding For-Profit Colleges .................................................. 11
Program Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 3 Methodology ................................................................................................... 13
Program Evaluation Model ........................................................................................... 13
Context and Participants ............................................................................................... 14
Instruments .................................................................................................................... 14
Data Collection and Analysis........................................................................................ 15
Chapter 4 Results ............................................................................................................. 16
Directly Related Questions ........................................................................................... 16 v
Pre-Program Survey Question 5 ............................................................................... 17
Pre-Program Survey Question 9 ............................................................................... 18
Pre-Program Survey Question 11 ............................................................................. 18
Post-Program Survey Question 3 .............................................................................. 20
Post-Program Survey Question 4 .............................................................................. 21
Interview Question 1 ................................................................................................. 21
Interview Question 2 ................................................................................................. 23
Interview Question 3 ................................................................................................. 24
Interview Question 4 ................................................................................................. 25
Background Questions .................................................................................................. 27
Chapter 5 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 30
Problem Statement and Methodology Review ............................................................. 30
Results Summary .......................................................................................................... 31
Directly Related Survey Questions ........................................................................... 31
Interview Results Summary ...................................................................................... 32
Background Questions .............................................................................................. 33
Discussion of Results .................................................................................................... 34
Limitations ................................................................................................................ 38
Recommendations in General and for Further Research .......................................... 39
References ......................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A: Instruments .................................................................................................. 43
Informed Consent Form ................................................................................................ 44
Pre-Program Survey ...................................................................................................... 46 vi
Post-Program Survey .................................................................................................... 47
Interview Script ............................................................................................................. 48
Appendix B: Results Analysis, Additional Tables ........................................................... 49
Tables Representing Data Analysis Results ................................................................. 49
Appendix C: Raw Data ..................................................................................................... 57
Pre-Program Survey ...................................................................................................... 57
Post-Program Survey .................................................................................................... 62
Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix D: IRB Approval .............................................................................................. 67
vii
List of Tables
Table Page
3.1 Participant Age Statistics .......................................................................................... 21
4.1 Rankings According to Getting the Best Jobs .......................................................... 25
4.2 Response Examples for Interview Question 2 .......................................................... 29
4.3 Response Examples for Interview Question 3 .......................................................... 31
viii
List of Figures
Figure Page
4.1 Downsides of For-Profit Colleges by “Knew the Difference” Group ...................... 32
4.2 Downsides of For-Profit Colleges by “Did Not Know the Difference” Group ........ 32
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Some might say that the Utah County, Utah area is over-saturated with higher-education opportunities. In addition to two major universities, Utah County also houses many for-profit colleges ranging from beauty academies to automotive welding programs. One for-profit college, Stevens-Henager College, has two campuses, one in Orem, Utah and a satellite campus in Lehi, Utah. This program evaluation focused on determining the public perception of a specific category of people living within or near Utah County, Utah regarding Stevens-Henager College. In addition, the results from this study will be used to make recommendations to Stevens-Henager College concerning marketing strategies. This chapter contains a brief explanation of the background reasoning for the study, the problem and research questions that guided the study, the professional significance both academically and professionally for the study, and a review of literature relevant to the study.
Background
Recently the for-profit college industry has received a lot of attention due to an increase of government activity. The Obama Administration has enacted a number of changes to the regulations that govern the industry, especially concerning recruitment standards. According to Nocera (2011) of The New York Times, for-profit colleges make most of their money by recruiting students from the poor and working class who must draw from federal funding to pay tuition. An article from The New York Times indicates one of the greatest criticisms of the for-profit college industry is that many schools 2
exaggerate the value of their degree programs by promising middle-class paying careers but delivering large amounts of debt and low-paying jobs (Goodman, 2010). Despite these claims it seems the industry is growing in its student population. Although he starts by calling out the industry, Nocera (2011) states that America desperately needs the for-profit college industry to succeed and that enrollment for these colleges increased 236% since 1998.
Stevens-Henager College is a nationally accredited college with four major programs in the fields of Business, Medical and Health Sciences, Graphic Arts, and Computer Technology. According to the company website, business, technical, and medical leaders have come to recognize Stevens-Henager College graduates for their superior training and their outstanding professionalism (www.stevenshenager.edu). Within the for-profit college industry, a common approach to a down economy is not to panic because it can often mean more people will go back to school in an effort to increase their own marketability. However, at Stevens-Henager College’s Provo/Orem, Utah campus enrollment rates are declining from month-to-month and drop-out rates are increasing. This has lead management to make two important adjustments: 1) to ask the question, “What is the public perception of our college?”, and 2) make a change in marketing strategies to target a more specified niche of potential students. Recently major marketing efforts have shifted to focus on a free-service course geared to help adults that did not graduate high school obtain their General Education Development certificate, or GED®. 3
Problem Statement and Research Questions
There has not been any significant research done regarding the public perception of Stevens-Henager College or the for-profit college industry, nor has Stevens-Henager College done any formal research to determine the market demands for the Utah County area. This program evaluation attempts to answer the following question: What is the public perception of for-profit/career colleges, and specifically Stevens-Henager College, within the Utah County, Utah area by those residents in need of a GED®?
Significance
An in-depth program evaluation of a local for-profit college has professional significance on two levels: academic and professional. The body of research available on for-profit colleges is not extensive and is lacking a direct study of public perception. As a business, Stevens-Henager College will find great value in feedback of this nature and in recommendations made based on actual data gathered from public surveys and interviews. The results of this program evaluation, and the recommendations made therein, will be crucial to the company’s decision making process for future marketing strategies, program development, and public relations efforts.
Overview of Methodology
In order for this study to be most effective, participants had to be chosen from a local population relative to the Provo/Orem campus of Stevens-Henager College. Participants in this study included students who are enrolled in the Stevens-Henager College GED® preparatory tutoring course. Participants were surveyed and interviewed regarding their perception of the for-profit college industry, and specifically Stevens-4
Henager College, at the beginning of their tutoring as well as upon completion of the course. Methods for gathering data included surveys and interviews.
Delimitations
Stevens-Henager College has many campuses spread out over multiple states. However, each campus operates as if it were its own college. Consequently, for the purposes of this study, only the areas designated within the jurisdiction of the Provo/Orem campus will be of concern. Participants came exclusively from those students enrolled in the GED® tutoring course at the Provo/Orem campus. Accordingly, the results of this study only reflect this region’s public opinion and may not be accurate in other areas. In addition, the term “public” was used to refer to the portion of the public as a whole who did not graduate high school and are in need of a GED® certificate. This is due to the fact that Stevens-Henager College is specifically targeting this population with its marketing efforts.
The author of this study is an employee of Stevens-Henager College. He is employed as the Coordinator of GED® Services for the Provo/Orem campus and also acts as one of the class tutors. There was no conflict of interest as a result of the author’s employment by Stevens Henager-College as any information gained through this study in regards to public perception is only useful to the school if presented objectively and truthfully.
Conclusion
Prospective college students have many options for higher education. As with any business, it is important for colleges (especially for-profit colleges) to understand the demands of its marketplace. This program evaluation determined how GED® students 5
view career colleges, specifically Stevens-Henager College, relative to other post-secondary options. The following chapters will include a review of relative literature and an explanation of the methodology used in this study. 6
Chapter 2 Literature
According to my father, people didn’t necessarily go to college after high school graduation when he was growing up. Most people went on to trade jobs or joined the military, and if they did go on to get any type of higher education it was typically at a community college. Times have definitely changed since then: the prospective students of today have more options than ever before, and they are taking advantage of it.
Market for For-Profit Colleges
As early as the mid-1990’s it was estimated that more than 60% of all high-school graduates were going on to some sort of postsecondary education, 61% of college students worked, 56% of college students were female, and 42% of students only attended part-time as work and families became higher priorities (Levine, 1997). Today, more non-traditional students are attending college, and over 70% of enrolled undergraduates are working full-time (more than 30 hours/week) jobs while in college (Wolniak and Pascarella, 2007). Not only are there more students attending college today than ever before, but the type of student attending college and the type of school they are looking for has changed as well.
With advances in technology and changing demands by students and job markets, the type of education a college student can receive has evolved to provide opportunities that have not traditionally been available. Distance education and distributed instruction have freed education from being bound by time constraints and geographic locations, making education more flexible for the non-traditional student (Morey, 2004). Morey (2004) credits the needs of adult learners, rising tuition rates at traditional universities, 7
and the globalization of higher education for the emergence of for-profit higher education institutions as a viable sector for postsecondary education in America. She goes on to explain that the for-profit industry’s success comes from its ability to provide “active instructional strategies and at times and locations convenient to students” (p. 135). This fits the needs of the changing students and their desire for convenience and shorter time to degrees. Courses in the evenings and on weekends suit their needs and the practical orientation serves their career objectives (ibid, 2004).
In the United States alone, for-profit colleges enrolled 3.2 million students in 2009. Additionally in 2009, 84,000 students graduated from for-profit colleges with bachelor’s degrees. Graduate degrees almost doubled from the year before, going from 36,000 in 2008 to 67,000 in 2009 (Yeoman, 2011). Officials at many for-profit colleges believe their success is due to their ability to deliver an education that is more in sync with the needs of today’s job market than that of the education received from more traditional institutions (ibid, 2011). However, despite their growing numbers, for-profit colleges are almost always negatively compared to their counterparts: the non-profit, private, and public institutions.
Criticisms of For-Profit Colleges
One of the big differences between for-profit and non-profit institutions is that of accreditation. For-profit colleges are generally accredited by national agencies, whereas traditional colleges – particularly public institutions – are accredited by regional agencies. The major difference between the two types of agencies is the criteria for accreditation. National agencies focus primarily on quantitative factors such as completion and job-placement rates. Regional accreditation agencies look more at shared governance, 8
academic freedom, and standards. (Yeoman, 2011) In part because of this difference in accreditation, it is rare for credits to transfer between for-profit colleges and traditional universities (ibid, 2011).
Many for-profit colleges seek out higher levels of accreditation. However, accreditation agencies are unsure as to how to deal with the distinctively different missions of traditional schools versus for-profits. For-profit institutions provide an education to their students in order for the institution to make money, whereas traditional colleges accept money from multiple sources so that the institution is able to provide an education to a student population (Morey, 2004). The difference is subtle, but important. One industry is in the business of education, and the other has a mission to provide education (ibid, 2004).
It is precisely the business-model approach to education that has gotten the for-profit industry a bad reputation in some circles. Recently President Obama has cracked down on the for-profit industry by restricting any institution that receives federal student aid from connecting admissions recruiters’ earnings to enrollment numbers (Goodman, 2010). This is in response to a number of critics of the industry claiming unethical marketing practices. Many schools have been accused of recruiters exaggerating the value of their degree programs (ibid, 2010). Aggressive recruiters bait students with promises of high-paying careers, and use the idea of greater future-income as justification to accumulate large amounts of student-loan debt (Goodman, 2010; Yeoman, 2011).
The topic of student-loan debt is one of the greatest catalysts for criticism against the for-profit college industry. Student-loan default rates are often used to measure whether or not students are landing in good-paying jobs after graduation (Yeoman, 2011). 9
Twenty-four percent of for-profit colleges have a three-year default rate of 30% or higher, compared to a combined 1% of non-profit private schools and public institutions that have a 30% or higher default rate (ibid, 2011).
For-profit colleges enrolled 12% of our nation’s college students in 2011, but used almost 25% of the federal government’s student-aid budget (Nocera, 2011). Critics point out that for-profit colleges make their money by recruiting students that are primarily from the poorer working-class and who will almost always need student-loans and grants to pay for college (ibid, 2011). The problem is that, of those students who borrowed financial-aid to go to a for-profit college and were actively paying those loans back in 2009, 47% went into default in 2010 (ibid, 2011).
One explanation for the high default rates can be explained by the population that customarily makes up the student body of for-profit colleges. Many of the students who attend for-profit colleges are the first in their family to ever attend college, and first-generation students have the highest drop-out rates (Clark, 2011). Students who drop-out of college have much higher loan-default rates than those who do graduate and are able to enter the workforce with a college degree (ibid, 2011).
Many critics point out that for-profit colleges do not graduate enough of their student population to justify how much federal student aid is used at those institutions. Yeoman (2011) references a September, 2010 report filed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee noting that between the sixteen for-profit colleges studied, 57% of the students who enrolled between July, 2008-June, 2009 had already dropped out of school. According to Yeoman (2011), those same colleges received 87% of their revenue in 2009 from federally-funded student aid. 10
Business Model of For-Profit Colleges
Another explanation for high drop-out rates can be explained by how for-profit colleges structure their businesses. Gansemer-Topf and Schuh (2006) did an in-depth study examining how organizational factors such as selectivity and expenditures contributed to retention and graduation rates. On the topic of selectivity, the authors were clear:
Colleges and universities with high selectivity ratings enroll students with higher standardized test scores, high school grade point averages, and high school rank than institutions with lower selectivity ratings and as a result, may have higher retention and graduation rates regardless of how they allocate their resources (Astin, Korn, & Green in Mayer-Foulker, 2002, p. 614).
Gansemer-Topf and Schuh’s 2006 study also showed that the way an institution allocates its resources directly influences student retention and graduation. The outcomes of the study showed statistical significance in predicting retention and graduation rates as follows: Expenditures in areas such as instruction and institutional grants positively contributed to first-year retention rates, whereas expenditures in student services contributed negatively (ibid, 2006). In addition to instruction and institutional grants, expenditures in academic support positively contributed to six-year graduation rates, whereas institutional support contributed negatively. The authors stress that further examination needs to be done in the activities that make up student services and institutional support to determine how they affect student retention (ibid, 2006). 11
The Need for For-Profit Colleges
Despite its many criticisms, the for-profit college industry appears to be here to stay. It has grown from a relatively niche market specializing in trade-job education to a $5 billion industry (Morey, 2004). Some researchers argue that the country can’t afford to put it (the for-profit college industry) out of business (Nocera, 2011). They point out the increasingly expensive state universities and overcrowded community colleges (ibid, 2011) and that many for-profit college students wouldn’t be accepted anywhere else (Morey, 2004). Nocera even goes so far as to say, “A well run for-profit college could teach its non-profit counterparts a thing-or-two about efficiency and innovation” (2011, para.11).
Gaps in the Literature Regarding For-Profit Colleges
The literature on for-profit colleges is extensive in some areas, but lacking in others. The majority of what is available primarily focuses on the differences between for-profit colleges and traditional universities, the success rates of for-profit colleges, and the amount of federal aid that is being used at for-profit colleges. Where the available literature seems to be lacking is a comprehensive study on how the public perceives the for-profit college industry. The purpose of this study was to identify what the perceptions of for-profit colleges (in general and specifically Stevens-Henager College) are from the perspective of a GED® student, and to determine how that perception is influenced by marketing and advertising.
Program Evaluation
This study intended to fill a portion of the gap in available literature regarding the for-profit college industry by conducting a summative outcome evaluation of the 12
marketing practices of Stevens-Henager College in Utah County, Utah. This study was designed as a program evaluation due to the distinct difference between research and evaluation. Evaluation is a type of inquiry that uses similar tactics as research, but its purpose is to improve a program’s effectiveness in a specific situation; whereas, the purpose of research is to prove the effectiveness of a program in generalized situations (Priest, 2001, & Healy, 2000). An evaluation is designed to judge the worth of a program and determine if it should continue, be modified, or be eliminated (Tener, 2009 & Healy, 2000).
The purpose of any program evaluation is to provide the necessary information for stakeholders to make decisions. The key difference between evaluation and research, and one reason program evaluation is an effective tool in decision making, is the lack of generalizing done by evaluation (Priest, 2001). The results of an evaluation cannot be used to make generalizations regarding other programs, but can suggest that a program has a history of being effective in specific past settings (ibid, 2001).
The reasons for doing an evaluation of a program are dictated by the demands of the program which can be classified into one of three categories: accountability, improvement, or marketing (Priest, 2001). This study focused on marketing demands because of its connection to public perception. Marketing demands focus on the effectiveness of past advertising and indicate a collective track record of successful programming (ibid, 2001). Priest simplifies marketing as the “external demand of demonstrating that programs can work” (p. 36). 13
Chapter 3 Methodology
The purpose of this study was to gain a clearer understanding of the public perception of GED® students regarding one of the community’s local for-profit colleges (Stevens-Henager College) and the industry in general. In addition, the study’s original intention was to provide information pertaining to the public’s reaction towards Stevens-Henager College’s marketing campaigns and their demand for specific program options. Recommendations will be made to Stevens-Henager College based on the data that were collected and the analysis thereof. Because there will be a report of the findings given to Stevens-Henager College, the most fitting method of research was an evaluation study using mixed-methods strategies.
Program Evaluation Model
Priest (2001) laid out five basic models of evaluation. The model that best fit the purpose of this study is that of “Outcome Evaluation”. Outcome evaluations can be used to measure if clients and customers are satisfied with the products and performances provided by a program. The results of outcome evaluations may be used to justify overall effectiveness and to suggest areas of program improvement (ibid, 2001). Additionally, this study was done as a summative evaluation as the results will be presented to external decision makers who are not part of the programs being evaluated (Healy, 2000).
This internal program evaluation used multiple sources for data and multiple means of collection. Using multiple sources and means of collection provides a broader perspective and the credibility of the evaluation is enhanced (Tener, 2009). 14
Context and Participants
This study focused on the perceptions of the community within Utah County, Utah and some of its outlying communities (Nephi, Utah and Heber City, Utah). This was done in order to align the research with the geographic territory of the Provo/Orem Campus of Stevens-Henager College. Participants throughout the targeted area included individuals who signed up for Stevens-Henager College’s GED® tutoring course as well as graduates from that course.
Instruments
The instruments used in this study (which can be found in Appendix A) were designed in an effort to identify the perceptions of Stevens-Henager College, and the for-profit college industry in general, by non-high school graduates. However, within that specific group exists tremendous variation in demographics. Many of the survey questions, and to a lesser degree the interview questions, were designed to identify demographic information.
Some of the questions found in the Pre-Program Survey were used to determine the demographics of the sample population studied. Out of the 122 Pre-Program Surveys given, 103 were completed in their entirety. Only fully-completed surveys were included in the data analysis. Demographic information about the participants provided important perspectives when considering the findings relative to the research question. For example, although the gender ratio was fairly even (53% of participants surveyed were male, while 47% were female); the age distribution – illustrated in Table 3.1 – of our sample population was not as evenly distributed. Notice that although there is a large range in age with the youngest participant being 18 and the oldest 52, the median age is 15
only 22 years old. Such a low median score means that the younger half of the participants fell within a 4-year span, while the older half fell within a 29-year span.
Table 3.1
Participant Age Statistics
ϻ
25
SE
0.71
Ϻ
22
Mode
18
σ
7.20
Range
34
Minimum
18
Maximum
52
In addition to items such as gender and age, many of the instrument questions were designed to identify the attitudes of participants toward college in general or what kind of familiarity they might already have with the college industries. A more complete examination of the demographic statistics gathered will be discussed in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 5.
Data Collection and Analysis
The majority of the data collected in this study were gathered via survey. In addition to surveys, the researcher also interviewed participants, as well as took note of general observations about Stevens-Henager College and its marketing and administrative practices. Stevens-Henager College also provided data about their GED® student population (primarily demographic in nature). Descriptive statistics were primarily used to describe the quantitative data collected. Qualitative analyses of any open-ended responses given in surveys and interviews revealed themes and patterns that were coded for further clarity. All data were kept confidential. 16
Chapter 4 Results
The Research Question driving this study was simple: What is the public perception of for-profit/career colleges, and specifically Stevens-Henager College, within the Utah County, Utah area by those residents in need of a GED®? The various instruments used contained 9 questions that directly pertain to the Research Question. These questions will be referred to as “Directly Related Questions” from this point forward. As noted in Chapter 3, not all of the instrument questions addressed the Research Question directly. Many questions existed to gain information regarding the demographics and preexisting understanding or feelings toward college in general. These questions will be referred to as “Background Questions” from this point forward.
Directly Related Questions
This chapter will be divided into individual sections devoted to each Directly Related Question separately. There will also be one section devoted to the Background Questions as a group. This chapter will only present the findings as they have been analyzed. Additional charts and tables that do not appear in this chapter can be found in Appendix B and the raw data collected can be found in Appendix C. In addition, a more complete discussion of the findings analysis will follow in Chapter 5.
It is important to note that not all surveys taken were included in the analysis of the data collected. Only those surveys that were completed fully were accepted and factored into the analysis. Although 122 pre-surveys were taken, 19 were not completed fully and not included. 107 post-surveys were taken and 6 were not completed fully. All of the interviews were included. 17
The Pre-Program Survey administered had 15 questions in total including items of interest such as Age and Gender. However, only results from questions 5, 9, and 11 are described below because they are the only questions that produced information directly related to the Research Question. Similarly, only results from questions 3 and 4 on the Post-Program Survey are evaluated for the same reason. All four of the Interview questions are included as they all pertain directly to the Research Question.
Pre-Program Survey Question 5
Pre-Program Survey Question 5 asks: In your opinion, is a degree from a for-profit college – such as Stevens-Henager College – just as valuable as a degree from a “traditional” university such as UVU or BYU? Participants were given the option of marking “Yes” or “No” to this question. All of the participants live within relatively close proximity to all three colleges referenced, and none of the participants had to ask for clarification on this question. Subsequently, it is assumed that all participants are familiar with each college referenced.
Of the 103 participants surveyed, 84% indicated that a degree from a for-profit college – such as Stevens-Henager College – was just as valuable as a degree from a traditional university such as UVU or BYU. Eighteen percent of participants indicated otherwise. All participants answered this question. Given the qualitative nature of this question, no analysis was used in an attempt to identify any significant correlations.
After initial analyses of the findings were done, the data were broken down further based on Age and Gender. There was a slight decrease in positive responses (9 percentage points down to 73%) in the 18-20 year-old group and a slight increase (5 percentage points up to 87%) in the 21-29 year-old group. 18
Pre-Program Survey Question 9
Pre-Program Survey Question 9 asks: How would you compare Stevens-Henager College to the other local for-profit colleges (Broadview, Eaglegate, Provo College, etc.)? Options were given to mark “Worse than other schools”, “Just the same”, and “Better than other schools”.
Out of 103 participants surveyed, 67% indicated that Stevens-Henager college was just the same as its local competitors, 31% indicated that it was better, and only 2% indicated that it was worse. Further analysis was done on this question to break down the participants by age and gender, and as with the previous question there was not a significant amount of variation within the older age group, nor with either of the gender groups. However, the younger age group’s “Better” responses dropped seven percentage points and were redistributed with a four percentage point increase in “Worse” responses and three percentage points in “Same”. In contrast, the middle age group had zero “Worse” responses, showed a decrease of three percentage points in “Same” responses, and an increase in “Better” responses of five percentage points.
Pre-Program Survey Question 11
Pre-Program Survey Question 11 asks: Rank each of the following schools according to which graduates you think probably get the best jobs simply because they graduated from that school. Participants were then given spaces to provide a ranking from 1-4, with one being the best, next to each of the following four schools: UVU, BYU, Stevens-Henager College, and University of Phoenix.
To analyze the data collected on Question 11, each school’s ranking, or “votes”, was counted (for example, UVU received 29 1st place votes, 51 2nd place votes, 18 3rd 19
place votes, and 5 4th place votes). After tallying each campus’ votes a descriptive analysis was done to determine what the overall ranking of the schools would be. Because the scale used is a reverse-order scale, meaning that the lower the ranking the higher the perception of the school, the schools’ rankings would be described in the order of lowest scores.
The Mean scores, Mode scores, and Sum scores all resulted in the schools being ranked in the order of BYU, UVU, SHC, and UoP. BYU had by far the most 1st place votes with 67 (38 votes more than UVU which came in 2nd), a Mean score of 1.77, a Mode of 1, and a Sum of all votes at 182. Every school received at least 1 top ranking vote as well as at least 1 lowest ranking vote. Table 4.1 illustrates each schools ranking.
Table 4.1
Rankings According to Getting the Best Jobs
UVU
BYU
1st
29
ϻ
1.99
1st
67
ϻ
1.77
2nd
51
SE
0.08
2nd
9
SE
0.11
3rd
18
Ϻ
2
3rd
11
Ϻ
1
4th
5
Mode
2
4th
16
Mode
1
σ
0.81
σ
1.16
Σ
205
Σ
182
SHC
Phoenix
1st
14
ϻ
2.59
1st
20
ϻ
2.8
2nd
30
SE
0.09
2nd
22
SE
0.11
3rd
43
Ϻ
3
3rd
20
Ϻ
3
4th
16
Mode
3
4th
41
Mode
4
σ
0.91
σ
1.17
Σ
267
Σ
288
Note. Each college was given a ranking of 1-4. The numbers in the second column indicate how many votes for that ranking the college received. The descriptive statistics in the 3rd and 4th columns represent an analysis of each college’s total rankings. 20
Post-Program Survey Question 3
Post-Program Survey Question 3 asks: Has your experience in this GED® course changed your opinions toward SHC as a college option? Participants were given the option to mark “Yes” or “No” as well as space to explain their answer and a prompt to do so.
There were 101 completed post-surveys. Of them, 62% indicated that their experience in the GED® course changed their opinions of Stevens-Henager College. Thirty-eight percent said their opinions had not changed. As expected with qualitative data, there existed a lot of variance in responses. That being said, the three most common explanations given for a changed opinion of Stevens-Henager College were 1) The course inspired the participant to go on to college – 44%, 2) The course had great teachers – 25%, and 3) The course was easy and helpful – 13%. The three most common explanations given for not having a changed opinion were 1) Didn’t like Stevens-Henager College before and I still don’t – 55%, 2) Already liked it and I still do – 19%, and 3) I still do not have an opinion about Stevens-Henager College – 17%.
Of particular note is the statistics indicating that the number one “Yes” explanation (the course inspired the participant to go on to college) accounted for 27% of the total responses given. A good example of a common response is “I didn’t want to go here, but now I do because of the people.” In addition, the number one most common “No” explanation (Didn’t like Stevens-Henager College before and I still don’t) accounted for 21% of the total responses given with a typical answer being related to Stevens-Henager College’s limited program choices. 21
Post-Program Survey Question 4
Post-Program Survey Question 4 asks: If yes, (referring to the response to question number 3) have your opinions changed for the better or worse? Participants were given the option to pick “Better” or “Worse” as well as given space to explain their answer and a prompt to do so.
Despite the instructions to only answer Question 4 if the participant had marked “Yes” to the previous question, there were 73 responses filled out on the surveys instead of the expected 63. Of those 73 responses, 71 of them marked that their opinions changed for the better. The three most common explanations were 1) Overall good experience – 72%, 2) Great teachers – 34%, and 3) I learned a lot – 17%. There was only one response given for an explanation of a marked response of “Worse” and that was that the participant felt Stevens-Henager College’s college credits did not transfer.
This question had significantly more variation within its responses than the previous question. In order to define the three most common themes, the author had to use very broad categories. For example, a participant responded that the course “Helped me realize how to succeed”. Such a response was the only such response of its kind and was considered the product of having an overall good experience. Whereas, a response of “Made it easy to learn” was not common enough to justify its own categorical theme either and was subsequently included in with other responses that would be representative of great teachers.
Interview Question 1
Interview Question 1 asks: Do you know the difference between a for-profit college and what would be considered a “traditional” university? Participants would 22
simply answer yes or no. Those who answered yes explained the differences were primarily about educational approaches, financial differences, or accreditation differences. If a participant answered “No”, the following explanation of the difference was used:
There are many differences between the two. For the purposes of this interview, the primary differences are 1) Often times for-profit colleges are more expensive, 2) Often times for-profit colleges are faster, and 3) Traditional universities usually focus more on a “well-rounded” education and offer a number of general education courses that can take as many as 8 semesters or more to complete before you go on to your selected major’s core classes. Whereas for-profit colleges, often referred to as career-colleges, typically spend less time on general education courses and more time on classes that are directly related to the careers students are preparing for.
Only 4 of the 12 participants interviewed indicated in advance that they knew the difference between for-profit colleges and traditional universities. Of those 4, 2 were men and 2 were women, 3 were students who had gone on from the GED® and enrolled in Stevens-Henager College, and the fourth participant was a current GED® student and indicated no desire to enroll in Stevens-Henager College in the future. All other questions from the interviews were analyzed according to the two separate groups “Knew the Difference” and “Did Not Know the Difference”. 23
Interview Question 2
Interview Question 2 asks: How would you compare a degree from a for-profit college like Stevens-Henager College to a degree from a traditional university like UVU? The participant responses were grouped again by whether they knew the differences between the two college types before the interview or not. Responses generally fit into three primary categories. The first category, which had 14 total responses, is summarized as “Traditional University degrees are better”. The second category, which had 12 total responses, is summarized as “For-profit college degrees are better”. The third and final category, which had 6 total responses, is summarized as “The degrees are the same”. There were 14 total responses that were determined to be favorable toward traditional university degrees, 12 responses that were favorable toward for-profit college degrees and 6 responses that did not favor one over the other. An example of a response from the interviews that would be coded into its respective category is as follows:
Table 4.2
Response Examples for Interview Question 2
Example
Favored
Degrees from bigger, more well-known, schools are better.
Tradition university degrees
For-profit college degrees put more emphasis on the major instead of general education courses.
For-profit college degrees
One might be better than the other, but it depends on the field of study.
Neither as being better
Within the Knew the Difference group 2 participants responded that traditional university degrees were better, 1 responded that they were the same, one reported that in this particular participant’s opinion they were the same but society thinks traditional 24
university degrees are better. None of the four participants in this group thought for-profit degrees were better and 2 of the 3 participants who indicated that traditional university degrees are better are enrolled at Stevens-Henager College.
Within the Didn’t Know the Difference group only 1 participant indicated that traditional university degrees were better, 5 indicated that for-profit college degrees were better, and 2 that they were the same. Of this group, only two participants were enrolled in Stevens-Henager College and their responses were split between the for-profit college degrees being better and the degrees being the same. All the other participants were enrolled in the GED® tutoring course.
Interview Question 3
Interview Question 3 asks: Do you think it matters where you go to college when it comes to actually getting a job? Explain your answer. The participant responses were grouped again by whether they knew the differences between the two college types before the interview or not. All four participants in the Knew the Difference group indicated that employers care where your degree comes from. Within the Didn’t Know the Difference group, four participants indicated that employers cared and 3 indicated that employers do not care. As with the previous question, the two members of the Didn’t Know the Difference group that are enrolled at Stevens-Henager College were split with one response that employers care and one that employers do not care.
The responses within each theme (employers care or do not care) were further coded into themes. Of which, 19 responses indicated that for some reason employers would care, whereas only 9 responses indicated otherwise. An example of a response from the interviews that would be coded into its respective category is as follows: 25
Table 4.3
Response Examples for Interview Question 3
Example
Coded
More prestigious schools with greater recognition have more credibility with employers and look better on a resume.
Employers care
No one cares where you got your degree as much as they care that you have one at all.
Employers do not care
Interview Question 4
Interview Question 4 asks: In your opinion, what are the greatest downsides to for-profit colleges? The participant responses were grouped again by whether they knew the differences between the two college types before the interview or not. All of the responses were coded into the following themes:
A. They are only for students who can’t get into “real” schools
B. Their degrees aren’t good for long-term goals
C. None
D. Financial Issues (cost, financial aid, etc.)
E. Job Placement Issues
F. Not well known/Low perception
G. Not well-rounded education
Most participants gave responses that included statements which could be coded in more than one theme. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 show the distribution of each of the themes within the two groups.
26
Figure 4.1 Downsides of For-Profit Colleges by “Knew the Difference” Group
Figure 4.1. The breakdown of responses for Question 4 of those participants who knew the difference between a for-profit college and traditional university prior to interview.
Figure 4.2 Downsides of For-Profit Colleges by “Did Not Know the Difference” Group
Figure 4.2. The breakdown of responses for Question 4 of those participants who did not know the difference between a for-profit college and traditional university prior to interview.
A: 14%
B: 14%
C: 0%
D: 29%
E: 14%
F: 29%
G: 0%
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:
A: 6%
B: 0%
C: 13%
D: 25%
E: 44%
F: 6%
G: 6%
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:27
Background Questions
Many Background Questions were asked in the surveys and interviews for the purpose of gaining greater insight to the demographics of our sample population. Questions consisted of typical demographic identifiers such as Age, Gender, and the City You Live In. Additionally, questions were asked concerning their background and how they view college in general. Topics for additional background questions included:
 Did your parents go to college
 Do you intend to go to college
 How does graduating from college affect someone
 How serious have you thought about college
 Why didn’t you graduate from high school
 Why do you want your GED® at this time
 How important is college to you
The post survey included similar questions for the same purpose:
 Now that you have your GED® do you plan to go to college
 How has your experience in the course effected your academic confidence
Due to the fact that these questions do not directly relate to the Research Question, this section will only present the more noteworthy analysis results from these questions. More complete illustrations of the data collected and the analysis of it can be found in Appendix B.
The sample population indicated that 45% of participants had at least one parent attend or graduate college. The data were broken down and analyzed further by age group and gender to see if any significant points of interest could be found. 28
The vast majority of participants (94%) indicated that they intended to go on to college, and 96% of participants believe that graduating college will change a person’s life for the better. However, only 64% indicated that going to college was “Very important” to them. When asked to rank how seriously they have thought about going to college, less than half (46%) marked a score of 5 on a Likert Scale with values ranging from 1-5 with a 1 meaning “Never planned on college” and a 5 meaning “Definitely Planned on college. Additionally, only 50% of participants indicated that their primary motivation for getting their GED® was to be able to go on to college.
When comparing the pre-survey attitudes towards college with the post-survey attitudes, some interesting data points emerged. Eighty-seven percent of participants indicated on the post-survey that they plan on going on to college representing a seven percentage point drop from the pre-survey. However, when asked how the GED® experience had affected their academic self-esteem, 93% indicated it had improved, 7% indicated it had not changed, and no participant marked that it had decreased.
The data were broken down and analyzed further by age group and gender to see if any significant points of interest could be found. As mentioned earlier, 94% of participants indicated they intended to go to college someday. Of the 6 participants that indicated otherwise, all but one were in the highest (30-50+) age category. Of those 5 who indicated they did not intend to go to college, 3 were female and 2 were male. When asked how graduating college would affect their lives, only male participants indicated that it would make no difference.
When Pre-Survey Question 8 (asking about motivations for getting the GED®) was broken down into Age and Gender groups, each group’s results mirrored the total 29
results with very little variance. The only exception to this was the 30-50+ age demographic. Within that group the results showed a 12 percentage point drop (compared to the total participant results) in responses indicating college as the primary motivation for getting their GED®, a six percentage point drop for their job, and a two percentage point drop for military. However, the option of “Other” as a primary motivating factor increased 20 percentage points.
Pre-Survey Question 10 (asking about the importance of college) had similar results when broken down as Question 8. Most categories stayed consistent with total group results. However, the middle age group (21-29) showed a 13 percentage point higher result than the total group in answers marked indicating that getting a college education was very important. As with the previous question, the highest age group (30-50+) showed the most variation from the total group results. There were 22 and 12 percentage point increased differences in responses indicating college would make no difference and college is important, respectively. The greatest difference was found in that same group (30-50+) when it came to answers marked “Very Important”. The other two age groups marked college as very important 73% of the time, whereas the oldest age group only marked it 30% of the time.
Women were the only group that varied from the total on Pre-Survey Question 2. The total group indicated that 45% of the participants had at least one parent attend or graduate from college. However, when separated by gender, women as a group only had 38% of the participants had at least one parent attend or graduate from college.
30
Chapter 5 Discussion
Prospective college students have many options for higher education. As with any business, it is important for colleges (especially for-profit colleges) to understand the demands of its marketplace. This program evaluation provided insight as to how GED® students view career colleges in general, and specifically Stevens-Henager College, relative to other post-secondary options.
In this chapter, the results of the analysis presented in Chapter 4 will be discussed for meaning and implications. Interpretations of the data will be presented, as well as a discussion of the limitations of this study. In the “Discussion of Results” sub-section, only the most significant results will be discussed. Finally, a brief discussion will be presented regarding any further research that could be done and questions that could be explored as a result of the findings of this study.
Problem Statement and Methodology Review
Prior to this study, there had not been any significant research done to determine how the local public may perceive Stevens-Henager College or the for-profit college industry. Subsequently, the Research Question that guided this internal evaluation study focused on finding out what the public perception of for-profit/career colleges, and specifically Stevens-Henager College, within the Utah County, Utah area is by one section of the college’s target demographic: those residents in need of a GED®.
Participants in this study included students who are enrolled in a Stevens-Henager College GED® preparatory tutoring course at the school’s Provo/Orem, Utah campus. 31
Participants were surveyed and interviewed at the beginning of their tutoring as well as upon completion of the course.
Results Summary
Two surveys were administered to participants. Only fully completed surveys were included in the data analysis. The Pre-Program survey had 103 fully completed surveys and the Post-Program survey had 101 completed surveys. Participants remained anonymous and there was no mechanism in place to align the Post and Pre-Program surveys together. Subsequently, the two surveys were treated as if filled out by completely different sample populations. In addition to the surveys, 12 participants were interviewed at various points during their involvement of the GED® tutoring course.
Directly Related Survey Questions
Of the participants surveyed, 84% viewed a degree from a for-profit college to be just as valuable as a degree from a traditional university and 98% of participants indicated that Stevens-Henager College was either better than or just as good as other local for-profit colleges. When ranking local colleges and universities according to which school’s degree would help you get the best jobs, participants voted Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University – both traditional universities – first and second respectively. Stevens-Henager College and University of Phoenix – both for-profit colleges, were ranked third and fourth respectively.
Survey results indicated that 62% of participants experienced a change in their opinions of Stevens-Henager College as a direct result of participating in the GED® tutoring course. Of those, 97% indicated the change in opinion was for the better. Just over a fourth (27%) of explanations for any change in opinions, positive or negative, was 32
attributed to being “inspired to go on to college”. Whereas, the next most common explanation for a changed opinion, again both positive or negative, was related to Stevens-Henager College having a limited number of college programs available to choose from.
Interview Results Summary
There were 12 participants interviewed; of which, only four participants indicated that they already knew the difference between a for-profit college and a traditional university. Three of the four who previously knew the difference between college types believe traditional university degrees to be better, including two participants who were enrolled at Stevens-Henager College at the time of the interview. Of the remaining eight participants, only one indicated that traditional university degrees were better while five said for-profit degrees were better, and one said they were the same. Two of the participants who did not know the differences between college types were enrolled in Stevens-Henager College and one of them said traditional university degrees were better.
Participants were asked follow-up questions to give them an opportunity to expound on their opinions towards the two college groups. Within the responses were 19 comments indicating that participants believe employers care about where a college degree comes from; or in other words, employers care what college an interviewee graduated from. In addition, participants who knew the difference between the two colleges in advance reported financial issues (such as tuition costs) and the fact that for-profit colleges are not well known or have a low perception by employers (both accounted for 29% of the responses) as the two biggest downsides to for-profit colleges. 33
Participants who did not know the difference prior to being interviewed said that job placement issues were by far the biggest downside with 44% of the responses.
Background Questions
The sample population who participated in the pre-survey reported that 55% of them did not have at least one parent attend or graduate from college (See Appendix B). When the same results were broken into gender groups, the percentage increased seven points in the female demographic.
When asked on the pre-survey, 94% of participants said that they intended to go on to college someday and 96% of participants believed that graduating college will change a person’s life for the better. However, only 50% of participants indicated that going to college was the primary motivator for getting their GED®. On the post-survey, only 87% of participants indicated that they planned on attending college someday even though the majority (93%) felt like their experience in the GED® course had increased their academic self-esteem.
Many of the results stayed consistent when broken into demographic groups based on age and gender. However, the most variance occurred with the highest age group which consisted of participants between the ages of 30 and 50+. Five of the six participants who initially said they did not intend to go to college someday were in the highest age group. Additionally, 34% of the highest age group reported “Other” as the primary reason for getting their GED® (instead of Job, College, or Military) compared to only 7% and 10% of the lower two age groups. The study also showed that 30% of the oldest age group does not believe college will make a difference for them compared to only 2.5% of the younger two groups. 34
Discussion of Results
The purpose of any program evaluation is to provide the necessary information for stakeholders to make decisions. The results of an evaluation should not be used to make generalizations regarding other programs, but can suggest that a program has a history of being effective in specific past settings (Priest, 2001). The idea behind this particular program evaluation was to get a clearer picture of a sample population’s perception of a given industry. This could be considered a measure of the effectiveness of past marketing efforts. Further, the results of this evaluation could be used to identify the effectiveness of Stevens-Henager College’s GED® tutoring courses as a marketing strategy by evaluating the perception of its students toward the college sponsoring their tutoring.
Many of the students who attend for-profit colleges are the first in their family to ever attend college (Clark, 2011). The results of this study appear to support this, as a high percentage of participants (55% overall) would be first-generation college students if they went on to enroll somewhere. It is interesting to compare this particular result with the pattern found during the interviews. Seventy-five percent of the participants interviewed did not know the difference between a for-profit college and a traditional university. Two of the participants that were enrolled in a for-profit college still indicated that they didn’t know the difference. The interview sample size was relatively small with only 12 participants (compared to over 200 surveys) and it would be interesting to see if a larger sample size would produce similar results as well as see if correlations could be made regarding knowing the difference between college types and having had parents attend college. 35
Discovering that most of the participants in the interviews did not know the difference between college types was indeed an unexpected but potentially important finding. Survey results showed that 84% of participants viewed for-profit college degrees to be just as valuable as traditional university degrees. However, when participants ranked colleges based on which one would help the most on a resume when it comes to getting a job, the local traditional colleges won in a landslide. This suggests that either 1) participants responded to the question of degree value without truly knowing the differences between the college types, or the participants believe 2) regardless of actual value, employers care more about where you got your degree from than the quality of education you received while getting it. Interview responses support the latter; however, given the limited sample size more research in this area should be done.
The potential effects of participants’ ignorance when it comes to college types could impact their perception towards for-profit colleges, which in turn could dramatically impact decision making. If a prospective student believes the two college types provide the same kind of educational value, but one will make it easier to find a job, it might discourage them from exploring all of their available options for higher education because they fear there will be little to no return on their investment.
Participants who indicated they did not know the difference between the two college types at the time of interview responded that for-profit degrees were better than traditional university degrees at a 5:1 ratio. It is interesting to note that this response came after the differences were explained to them and not while they were still confused about the differences. Consequently, their opinions regarding the relative value of a for-profit degree compared to a traditional university degree could be in large part impacted by the 36
way the differences are presented to them and not by the actual differences themselves. If this is the case, it could leave prospective students of for-profit colleges vulnerable to unethical marketing practices. Many schools have been accused of recruiters exaggerating the value of their degree programs in an effort to increase enrollments (Goodman, 2010). In order to safeguard against this, it would be in the best interest of for-profit colleges to do further research into this topic. The sample size of this particular component of this study was too small to indicate strong results, but there existed enough data to warrant further research into this issue.
When participants were asked what the biggest downsides to for-profit colleges were, by far the most common response by those who did not know the difference between the college types was job placement issues. This suggests again that those who do not know the difference between college types still believe traditional universities will provide a better chance at employment. This could be a big problem for the for-profit industry as this sample population represents a large section of their target demographic.
Finally, this study provided some interesting findings regarding the GED® tutoring course as a marketing instrument. As discussed earlier, study participants initially indicated a high positive attitude towards the for-profit industry and an even higher perception of Stevens-Henager College when compared to its local for-profit competition. Ninety-eight percent of participants viewed Stevens-Henager College as better than or at least just as good as its local for-profit competition. However, as we just discussed, the perception seems to be that for-profit college degrees are not as valuable when it comes to getting a job as traditional universities. Consequently, the for-profit college industry has some work to do if that perception is to be challenged. 37
When participants were asked how their experience in the GED® tutoring courses impacted their opinions toward Stevens-Henager College, approximately two-thirds of them indicated that their opinions had changed as a result of being in the course. Of those, 97% indicated that change was positive and the most common reasons were that as students they became more inspired to go on to college and that the teachers were great. This has important implications as a marketing strategy because transitioning from a negative perspective to a positive one while being able to first-hand sample the educational experience is a priceless public relations return.
Despite the positive responses to the GED® tutoring program, the study also produced some negative results on college attitudes in general. Going into the program 94% of participants professed that they planned on going on to college someday. However, only half of them came into the course because of a primary motivation of wanting to go on to college. This suggests that many of them believe college is a good thing and they want to do it, but that it is not necessarily for them and they aren’t really planning on doing it. This information was then followed-up by post-survey results that indicated only 87% of the participants planned on going to college someday even though most of the participants gained greater self confidence in their abilities to be successful academically.
The decrease of participants planning on attending college in the future from the pre-survey to the post-survey suggests that some participants may have actually changed their minds about going to college during their tutoring course. When considering that many reported an increased academic self-esteem, it could be suggested that as a result of the tutoring process some participants were reminded that they do not enjoy school 38
despite being better at it. If this is the case, then using the GED® tutoring course as a marketing tool could be considered to have backfired with some students. Further research into this potential connection is definitely suggested.
So far the results have been discussed with the entire sample population in mind. However, when broken into separate groups according to Age, one particular age group produced very different results than the rest. The oldest age group studied, ranging in age between 30 and 50+ years of age (52 to be exact), included all but one of the participants who initially indicated no interest in going on to college. The study also showed this age group to be less motivated by college to get their GED® as well as having a more negative outlook on college’s impact on their lives than the younger participants. This suggests that targeting this particular age group with marketing efforts might be less productive than younger age groups.
Limitations
In hindsight, this study had a number of limitations that if addressed could have contributed significantly to the results. One such limitation is that the instruments used did not do an adequate job of identifying what influencing factors were most prevalent in shaping the participants’ perceptions of the for-profit college industry prior to the study. In an effort to identify the perceptions of the participants, knowing what marketing channels they had been exposed to would have added valuable insight to what factors shape perceptions.
A second limitation was discovered when correlation statistics were attempted. Numeric values were assigned to various optional answers and then Pearson Correlations were run in an effort to find significant relationships between responses. However, upon 39
closer examination of the instruments used in the study, it was determined that the available responses were inherently subjective and non-numerical by nature making it difficult to quantify properly. Consequently, none of the outcomes from the correlation analysis were taken into consideration when determining the significant results of this study.
A third limitation was discussed at length in the previous section. The sample size for the interviews administered was disproportionately small given the sample size of surveys administered. Consequently, it is difficult to confidently project any of the same patterns discovered in the results of the interviews onto the greater sample population from the surveys. However, the unexpected findings as a result of the interviews had value in that they illustrated the potential of a large part of the population not knowing the differences between the two college types showcased in this study.
A fourth limitation was that the surveys did not provide a baseline explanation of the differences between for-profit colleges and traditional universities. The questions referred to specific local examples of each type of college that participants recognized, but this does not mean that participants are familiar with the particulars of the institutions or the differences between them.
Recommendations in General and for Further Research
It is strongly recommended that further research into this topic be conducted. As stated in Chapter 2, the literature at large on this subject is lacking in comprehensive studies on how the public perceives the for-profit college industry. This study provided some useful insights, but the limitations of the study indicate that more information is available to provide a more accurate understanding. 40
Specific recommendations would include studying the differences in perception between individuals who know the difference between college types and those who do not know the difference. In conjunction with this, a study of prior knowledge – further research taking into consideration a participant’s family background with college in general – has the potential to have significant correlations. Also, a more complete study of the perceptions of for-profit colleges according to age group would be valuable information when developing marketing strategies.
Any future research should include a baseline explanation of the differences between college types if the study intends to compare the two as a means of understanding public perceptions.
Finally, as the results of the study indicated that participants gained academic self-esteem from their GED® courses, but also indicated the fewer participants planned on going to college after they completed tutoring, it is recommended that future research include a component that studies how students of such courses felt about being in school again. Determining if simply being in a school setting has a negative impact on a participants desire to go to college in the future could provide insights as to how these students perceive college and the college experience in general.
41
References
Clark, J. B. (2011). The real deal on for-profit colleges: Their reputation is tarnished, but
they can be a compelling alternative to traditional schools. Kiplinger's Personal
Finance, 65(5), 64-68.
Gansemer-Topf, A. M., & Schuh, J. H. (2006). Institutional selectivity and institutional
expenditures: Examining organizational factors that contribute to retention and
graduation. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 613-642. doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9009-4
Goodman, P. (2010, March 13). In hard times, lured into trade school and debt. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Healy, M.A. (2000). Knowing what works: Program evaluation. New Directions for
Student Services, 90, 57-65. doi: 10.1002/ss.9005
Levine, A. (1997). How the academic profession is changing, Daedalus, 126(4), 1-20.
Morey, A. I. (2004). Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 131-150.
Nocera, J. (2011, September 16). Why we need for-profit colleges. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Priest, S. (2001). A program evaluation primer. The Journal of Experiential Education,
24(1), 34-40.
Tener, R. (2009). The whys and hows of program evaluation. The Education Digest,
74(8), 63-64.
42
Wolniak, G. C., & Pascarella, E. T. (2007). Initial evidence on the long-term impacts of
work colleges. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 39-71. doi: 10.1007/s11162- 006-9023-6
Yeoman, B. (2011). The high price of for-profit colleges. Academe, 97(3), 32-37.
43
Appendix A: Instruments
It is important to note that instruments used in this study may at times refer to Stevens-Henager College’s GED® tutoring course as a “program”. After the administration of the survey’s and interviews it was made know to the author of this study that the GED® is not to be confused with one of the college’s programs and should be referred to as a “course” in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
The following instruments were used in this study and are included hereafter in Appendix A: Study Consent Form, Pre-Program Survey, Post-Program Survey, and an Interview Script.
44
Informed Consent Form
INFORMED CONSENT
Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates
Title of Study: Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates
Principal Investigator:
Brian Bean
Stevens-Henager College Department of GED Services
Utah Valley University Department of Graduate Studies
1476 South Sandhill Road
801-418-6629
brian.bean@stevenshenager.edu
Background:
You are being invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine how adult non-high school graduates perceive the for-profit college industry, particularly Stevens-Henager College, as it relates to other post-secondary educational options.
Procedure: Your expected time for this study is approximately 5-10 minutes. You will be asked to answer a series of survey questions at the beginning of your GED tutoring program and again upon completion of your program. You may also be asked to participate in an anonymous interview. If so, that will take approximately 15-20 additional minutes. Participation in this study is strictly voluntary and declining to do so will in no way affect your relationship with the researcher.
Risks: The risks of this study are minimal. These risks are similar to those you experience when disclosing work-related information to others. You may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate your involvement at any time if you choose. There may be some unforeseeable risks, but every effort to minimize those will be taken. Your success in the GED program will not be affected by this study.
Benefits: You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. There will be no cost, nor compensation for participation in this study.
Alternative Procedures: If you would prefer to participate by being interviewed without taking the survey, you may volunteer to do so by contacting the principle investigator, Brian Bean.
Confidentiality: Please do not write any identifying information on the survey. Your responses will be kept anonymous. Every effort to preserve your confidentiality will be made 45
by your researcher including assigning code numbers for each completed survey and interview.
Person to Contact: Should you have any questions about the research or related matters, or would like a copy of this form, please contact Brian Bean at brian.bean@stevenshenager.edu. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, contact the Institutional Review Board at 801-863-8156
Consent: By signing this consent form, I confirm that I have read and understood the information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I may be given a copy of this consent form upon request. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
Print Name: __________________Signature: ___________________
Date: ____________________
46
Pre-Program Survey
Age: __________ City you live in: __________ Gender: __________
1. What was the last grade level of school you completed? Circle one.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2. Did either of your parents attend or graduate from COLLEGE?
 Yes  No
3. After you get your GED finished, do you intend to go to college or any higher education program?
 Yes  No
4. Does graduating from college change a person’s life for the better, for the worse, or make no difference?
 Worse  No difference  Better
5. In your opinion, is a degree from a for-profit college – such as Stevens-Henager College – just as valuable as a degree from a “traditional” university such as UVU or BYU?
 Yes  No
6. Rate how seriously you’ve thought about going to college.
Never planned on college 1 2 3 4 5 Definitely planned on college
7. Which of the following best describes why you didn’t graduate high school?
Check all that apply.
 Grades  Attendance  Personal Problems  Family Problems  Other
8. What is your primary motivation for getting your GED at this time?
 To get a better job  To go to college  To join the military  Other
9. How would you compare Stevens-Henager College to other local for-profit colleges (Broadview, Eaglegate, Provo College, etc.)?
 Worse than other schools  Just the same  Better than other schools
10. How important is getting a college education to you?
 Not Important  Makes no difference  Important  Very important
11. Rank each of the following schools according to which graduates you think probably get the best jobs simply because they graduated from that school.
1 = Best jobs --- 4 = Worst jobs
UVU
Stevens-Henager College
BYU
University of Phoenix
12. Please use the back of this page to write any other thoughts or opinions that you have regarding the for-profit college industry, or specifically Stevens-Henager College, that may not have been addressed in this survey. Leave blank if you do not wish to share any additional opinions.
47
Post-Program Survey
1. Now that you have completed the GED program, do you plan on enrolling in college or some sort of higher education program?
 Yes  No
2. How has your experiences with this GED program effected your self-confidence when it comes to school and academics?
 I am now MORE confident in my abilities to succeed in school academically
 I am now LESS confident in my abilities to succeed in school academically
 My confidence level has not changed
3. Has your experience in this GED program changed your opinions toward SHC as a college option?
 Yes  No
3.a. Explain your answer:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. If yes, have your opinions changed for the better or worse?
 Better  Worse
4.a. Explain your answer:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 48
Interview Script
Age:
Gender:
City:
1. Do you know the difference between a for-profit college and what would be considered a “traditional” university?
a. If no – interviewer is to explain the differences and give examples of each as follows:
There are many differences between the two. For the purposes of this interview, the primary differences are 1) Often times for-profit colleges are more expensive, 2) Often times for-profit colleges are faster, and 3) Traditional universities usually focus more on a “well-rounded” education and offer a number of general education courses that can take as many as 8 semesters or more to complete before you go on to your selected major’s core classes. Whereas for-profit colleges, often referred to as career-colleges, typically spend less time on general education courses and more time on classes that are directly related to the careers students are preparing for.
b. If yes – interviewer should ask: “What are the major differences between the two?”
2. How would you compare a degree from a for-profit college like Stevens-Henager College to a degree from a traditional university like UVU?
3. Do you think it matters where you go to college when it comes to actually getting a job? Explain your answer.
4. In your opinion what are the greatest downsides to for-profit colleges?
49
Appendix B: Results Analysis, Additional Tables
There are included in this appendix multiple graphs and tables indicating some of the more interesting data points collected and analyzed in this study but that were not explicitly detailed within the chapters. In addition, the raw data collected are also present.
Tables Representing Data Analysis Results
Table A.1
Last Completed Year of School
Mean
11
Standard Error
0.13
Median
11
Mode
11
Standard Deviation
1.30
Minimum
2
Maximum
12
Table A.2
Did Either Parent Graduated from College
Total Sample
Male
Female
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
46
57
28
27
18
30
45%
55%
51%
49%
38%
63%
18-20 Years Old
21-29 Years Old
30-50+ Years Old
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
15
18
21
26
10
13
45%
55%
45%
55%
43%
57%
50
Table A.3
Intend to go to College
Total Sample
Male
Female
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
97
6
53
2
44
4
94%
6%
96%
4%
92%
8%
18-20 Years Old
21-29 Years Old
30-50+ Years Old
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
33
0
46
1
18
5
100%
0%
98%
2%
78%
22%
Table A.4
Does Graduating College Change Life
Total Sample
Male
Female
Same
Better
Same
Better
Same
Better
4
99
4
51
0
48
4%
96%
7%
93%
0%
100%
18-20 Years Old
21-29 Years Old
30-50+ Years Old
Same
Better
Same
Better
Same
Better
3
30
0
47
1
22
9%
91%
0%
100%
4%
96%
Note. Although "Worse" was an option, no participants marked it. Therefore, it was not
included in this table.
51
Table A.5
Is a For-Profit Degree as Valuable as Traditional University Degree
Total Sample
Male
Female
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
84
19
45
10
39
9
82%
18%
82%
18%
81%
19%
18-20 Years Old
21-29 Years Old
30-50+ Years Old
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
24
9
41
6
19
4
73%
27%
87%
13%
83%
17%
Table A.6
How Seriously Did You Think About Going to College
1
2
3
4
5
4
4
20
28
47
4%
4%
19%
27%
46%
Descriptive Statistics of Responses
ϻ
4
σ
1.08
SE
0.11
Min
1
Ϻ
4
Max
5
Mode
5
Note. Likert Scale options from 1-5. A score of 1 represents "Never Planned on College". A score of 5 represents "Definitely Planned on College".
Table A.7
Why Didn't You Graduate
Reason
Count
Percent of Total
Grades
35
19%
Family Problems
29
16%
Attendance
46
25%
Personal Problems
43
24%
Other
29
16%
52
Table A.8
Motivation to get GED
Job
College
Military
Other
Total Sample
45
66
3
19
34%
50%
2%
14%
18-20 Years Old
16
24
1
3
36%
55%
2%
7%
21-29 Years Old
21
31
2
6
35%
52%
3%
10%
30-50+ Years Old
8
11
0
10
28%
38%
0%
34%
Male
24
33
2
10
35%
48%
3%
14%
Female
21
33
1
9
33%
52%
2%
14%
Note. The first row of data for each demographic group represents the number of responses for that category. The second row of data represents the percentage of total responses for that category.
53
Table A.9
Comparing SHC to Other Local For-Profit Colleges
Worse
Same
Better
Total Sample
2
69
32
2%
67%
31%
18-20 Years Old
2
23
8
6%
70%
24%
21-29 Years Old
0
30
17
0%
64%
36%
30-50+ Years Old
0
16
7
0%
70%
30%
Male
1
36
18
2%
65%
33%
Female
1
33
14
2%
69%
29%
Note. The first row of data for each demographic group represents the number of responses for that category. The second row of data represents the percentage of total responses for that category.
Figure A.1a Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1a. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Worse 2%
Same 67%
Better 31%
Total Sample
Worse
Same
Better54
Figure A.1b Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1b. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Figure A.1c Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1c. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Worse 6%
Same 70%
Better 24%
18-20 Year Age Group
Worse
Same
Better
Worse 0%
Same 64%
Better 36%
21-29 Year Age Group
Worse
Same
Better55
Figure A.1d Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1d. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Figure A.1e Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1e. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Worse 0%
Same 70%
Better 30%
30-50+ Year Age Group
Worse
Same
Better
Worse 2%
Same 65%
Better 33%
Male Participants
Worse
Same
Better56
Figure A.1f Comparing Stevens-Henager College to Other For-Profit Colleges
Figure A.1f. Sample size surveyed was 103 participants. Refer to Table A.9 for the specific number of responses in each category.
Table A.10
How Important is a College Education
No Difference
Important
Very Important
Total Sample
9
28
66
9%
27%
64%
18-20 Years Old
2
8
23
6%
24%
70%
21-29 Years Old
0
11
36
0%
23%
77%
30-50+ Years Old
7
9
7
30%
39%
30%
Male
5
16
34
9%
29%
62%
Female
4
12
32
8%
25%
67%
Note. The first row of data for each demographic group represents the number of responses for that category. The second row of data represents the percentage of total responses for that category. Although "Not Important" was an option, no participants marked it. Therefore, it was not included in this table.
Worse 2%
Same 69%
Better 29%
Female Participants
Worse
Same
Better57
Appendix C: Raw Data
Pre-Program Survey
Survey #
Age
City
Gender
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
G
A
PP
FP
O 8 18 Orem F 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X 14 18 Lehi M 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 16 18 Orem M 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 42 18 SF F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X X X 44 18 Orem M 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 48 18 Eagle Mountain F 9 Yes Yes Better No 5 X X X 86 18 PG M 10 No Yes Better No 5 X X X X 97 18 PG M 11 No Yes Better Yes 3 X 106 18 Provo M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 107 18 Payson M 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 114 18 Provo M 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 115 18 Orem M 12 No Yes No Difference No 4 X 129 18 Lehi M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 x 4 19 Orem M 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 20 19 AF M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X 32 19 PG M 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 49 19 Lehi F 10 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 60 19 Lehi M 11 Yes Yes No Difference Yes 3 X 75 19 SF M 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 79 19 Mt. Pleasant F 11 Yes Yes Better No 4 X X 98 19 Orem M 12 No Yes No Difference No 3 X 99 19 Orem M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 100 19 Orem F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 118 19 Orem M 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 21 20 Provo F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 28 20 Lehi F 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 43 20 Provo F 11 Yes Yes Better No 3 X X X X 47 20 Eagle Mountain M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X X 55 20 Orem F 9 No Yes Better No 4 X 56 20 Saratoga Spr M 11 No Yes Better No 5 X 62 20 Lehi M 11 No Yes Better No 1 X 69 20 Lehi F 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 116 20 AF M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 1 21 Orem M 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 53 21 PG M 11 Yes Yes Better No 5 X 61 21 PG F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X 63 21 Lehi M 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X 58
70 21 Springville M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 77 21 Provo F 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X 82 21 Lehi F 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 87 21 Orem M 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 109 21 Santaquin F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 5 22 SF F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 35 22 Springville M 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X X 38 22 AF M 10 No Yes Better Yes 3 X 41 22 Orem M 11 Yes Yes Better No 5 X X 50 22 Lehi M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 54 22 Orem F 11 No Yes Better No 4 X X X 68 22 Provo F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 90 22 Provo F 12 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 101 22 Orem F 12 No Yes Better Yes 3 X X 108 22 Payson F 9 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 112 22 Provo M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 123 22 Provo M 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 18 23 Salem M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 27 23 Riverton F 10 No Yes Better Yes 3 X 57 23 Orem M 9 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X 78 23 Santaquin M 9 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X X 83 23 Nephi F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 84 23 Nephi M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 2 24 Lehi M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X X 26 24 Provo F 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 111 24 Provo M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 119 24 Lehi F 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 10 25 Orem F 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X 103 25 PG M 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 104 25 Provo M 11 Yes Yes Better No 3 X 3 26 AF F 12 No No Better Yes 3 X 67 26 Eagle Mountain F 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 74 26 Nephi F 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X 96 26 Lehi M 12 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 121 26 Orem M 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 58 27 Orem F 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 59 27 Provo F 12 No Yes Better Yes 4 X X X X 113 27 AF F 10 No Yes Better No 5 X X 125 27 Payson F 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 81 28 Springville M 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 5 X 92 28 PG M 9 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 19 29 Orem M 11 Yes Yes Better No 5 X X X X 59
102 29 Provo F 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 6 30 PG M 2 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 7 30 AF F 9 No No Better Yes 3 X 34 30 Orem F 10 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 94 30 Orem F 11 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 71 31 Provo F 12 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 91 32 Provo F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X 30 33 Provo F 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 4 X 73 33 Provo M 8 No Yes No Difference Yes 3 X X X X X 105 34 Orem F 10 No Yes Better Yes 5 X 117 34 Orem M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 1 X X X 127 35 Lehi F 10 No No Better Yes 2 X X X X 128 35 Provo M 12 No Yes Better Yes 2 x x 37 36 AF M 11 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 80 36 Lehi F 10 Yes Yes Better No 4 X 39 37 Herriman M 11 Yes No Better No 2 X 76 38 Lehi M 11 No Yes Better Yes 5 X X X X 120 38 Springville F 11 No Yes Better No 5 X X 22 39 Springville M 10 Yes Yes Better Yes 3 X 126 39 AF F 12 No Yes Better No 5 X 72 40 SF F 8 No Yes Better Yes 4 X 93 45 Bluffdale M 10 Yes No Better Yes 1 X 29 48 Provo F 9 No Yes Better Yes 1 X 31 52 Riverton F 12 Yes No Better Yes 2 X
Survey #
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
J
C
M
O
UVU
BYU
SHC
UoP 8 X X Better Important 1 1 2 2 14 X Same Very 1 1 1 1 16 X Same Very 1 3 2 4 42 X X Better Very 2 1 3 4 44 X Same Very 3 1 4 2 48 X Worse Very 2 1 3 4 86 X Better Very 2 1 4 3 97 X Better Very 2 1 2 2 106 X Worse Important 4 4 1 1 107 X X Better Very 4 4 4 4 114 X Better Important 1 3 2 4 115 X Same Very 3 4 1 2 129 x Same Very 3 2 4 1 4 X Same Important 3 4 3 4 20 X Same Very 2 1 2 2 60
32 X Better Very 3 1 4 2 49 X X Same Very 1 1 1 1 60 X Same Important 2 1 3 4 75 X Same Very 3 2 4 1 79 X Same Important 2 1 3 3 98 X Same No Difference 2 1 2 2 99 X X Same Important 2 1 2 2 100 X X Same Very 2 1 3 4 118 X Same Very 1 4 1 1 21 X X Same Very 1 1 1 3 28 X Same Important 2 2 2 2 43 X X X Same No Difference 2 1 3 3 47 X Same Very 1 3 2 4 55 X Same Very 1 1 3 3 56 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 62 X Better Very 2 1 3 4 69 X X Same Very 1 3 2 4 116 X X Same Very 1 1 4 4 1 X Better Very 1 3 2 2 53 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 61 X Same Important 3 4 2 1 63 X Same Important 3 1 2 4 70 X Better Very 3 3 3 3 77 X Same Very 2 1 3 1 82 X Same Very 1 2 3 4 87 X X Same Very 2 1 3 4 109 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 5 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 35 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 38 X X Better Important 1 3 4 2 41 X Same Very 1 3 4 2 50 X Same Important 2 1 3 3 54 X Same Important 1 2 4 3 68 X Better Very 2 1 3 3 90 X X Same Very 3 3 3 2 101 X X Better Very 1 1 1 1 108 X Better Very 2 1 3 4 112 X Better Important 3 1 2 4 123 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 18 X Same Very 2 3 2 3 27 X Same Very 1 4 3 2 57 X Better Very 1 4 2 3 61
78 X X Better Important 1 4 3 2 83 X X Same Very 3 1 4 2 84 X Same Important 2 1 4 3 2 X Better Very 2 4 3 2 26 X Better Very 2 4 1 3 111 X Better Very 2 1 3 4 119 X Same Very 2 4 3 1 10 X Better Very 2 1 2 4 103 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 104 X Same Important 2 1 3 3 3 X Better Very 1 1 1 1 67 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 74 X X Same Important 3 4 2 1 96 X Same Very 2 1 3 4 121 X X Better Very 2 1 3 4 58 X Same Very 2 1 2 2 59 X X Same Very 1 1 1 1 113 X X Same Very 2 1 4 3 125 X Same Important 2 4 3 1 81 X X X Same Very 1 1 1 1 92 X Better Very 2 1 3 4 19 X X Same Very 2 1 3 4 102 X Better Very 4 3 2 1 6 X Same No Difference 2 1 3 4 7 X Same No Difference 1 1 1 1 34 X Better Important 3 1 2 4 94 X Same Very 1 2 4 3 71 X Better Important 2 1 3 4 91 X X Same Very 1 1 1 1 30 X Same Important 2 1 3 4 73 X Same No Difference 2 2 2 2 105 X Better Very 3 4 2 1 117 X X X Same Important 1 1 1 1 127 X X Same No Difference 2 1 3 4 128 x x Same Important 2 2 2 2 37 X Same Important 4 1 2 3 80 X Same Very 2 1 4 3 39 X Better No Difference 2 1 3 4 76 X X Better Very 2 1 3 4 120 X Same Important 2 1 4 3 22 X Same Important 3 1 2 4 126 X Better Very 1 2 3 4 62
72 X Same Very 1 1 2 2 93 X Same No Difference 3 4 2 2 29 X Better Important 3 1 2 4 31 X Same No Difference 4 1 2 3
Post-Program Survey
Survey #
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q3a Theme
Yes
No
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
No
More
No
Never heard of SHC prior to this program
X
2
Yes
More
No
SHC doesn't have the program of interest
X
3
No
More
No
Always thought of it as a good school
X
4
Yes
More
Yes
Showed how nice it would be to attend here
X
X
5
Yes
More
No
Wanted to go here prior to starting GED course
X
6
Yes
More
Yes
Planning to attend SHC. We make it easy.
X
X
7
No
None
No
Not looked at SHC
X
9
Yes
More
Yes
Disorganized
X
10
Yes
More
Yes
Helpful and Nice. Cares about students.
X
11
Yes
More
Yes
Programs and school are good fit for me.
X
12
Yes
More
No
Don't know enough about SHC
X
13
Yes
More
Yes
Used to think it was a joke because of
commercials. Don't anymore.
X
14
Yes
More
Yes
Very positive school for helping people.
X
15
Yes
More
No
Don't have my program.
X
16
Yes
None
Yes
Admire SHC for having GED. Don't know about SHC.
X
X
17
No
More
No
Can't afford school and never will.
X
18
Yes
More
Yes
Very fast paced.
X
19
Yes
More
Yes
Interested in some classes
X
20
Yes
More
No
Don't have my program.
X
21
No
More
No
Great for GED. Only heard bad things about SHC
X
X
22
Yes
More
No
Want to attend. Want more information.
X
X
23
Yes
More
No
More confident in myself now.
X
X
24
Yes
More
Yes
Great teachers
X
25
No
None
No
SHC helps people get to college through the GED
X
26
Yes
More
No
Would go here if it had my program
X
X
27
Yes
More
Yes
I didn't want to go here, now I do because of the people
X
X
28
Yes
None
Yes
Would go here if it had my program
X
29
Yes
More
Yes
Great college. Would consider it in the future
X
30
Yes
More
Yes
Want free phlebotomy
X
31
Yes
More
Yes
Learn about furthering my education
X
32
Yes
More
Yes
Want to go to SHC
X
33
Yes
More
Yes
SHC wants to help the community
X
34
Yes
More
Yes
I love the GED program
X
35
No
More
No
Other plans
X
36
Yes
More
Yes
Helped me a lot
X
37
Yes
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
38
Yes
More
Yes
Showed me more options
X
39
Yes
More
Yes
Great teacher. Now I can go to college
X
40
Yes
More
Yes
More confident to go to college now
X
41
Yes
None
Yes
Very helpful
X
42
No
More
Yes
Good school. Love the help
X
44
Yes
None
No
Leaving Orem
X
45
Yes
More
No
Don't offer my program
X
63
46
Yes
More
No
SHC is not accredited
X
47
Yes
More
No
Want to go to MATC for Med Asst
X
48
Yes
More
No
Great school
49
Yes
More
Yes
Lots of help
X
51
Yes
More
Yes
I want to go to college now
X
52
Yes
More
Yes
Great teachers.
X
53
No
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
54
Yes
More
Yes
Doesn't have my program
X
55
Yes
More
Yes
Might be what I am looking for
X
56
No
None
Yes
I want to go to college now
X
57
Yes
More
Yes
More familiar with SHC and its programs now
58
Yes
More
No
Always seemed like a good college
X
59
Yes
More
No
Always seemed like a good college
X
60
Yes
More
Yes
Great teachers
X
61
Yes
More
No
Small college is good. Helpful people.
X
62
Yes
More
Yes
Great and helpful staff
X
63
Yes
More
Yes
Great teacher
X
64
Yes
More
Yes
SHC is better than people said it was
X
65
No
More
Yes
GED was great program. Easier than I thought
X
66
Yes
More
Yes
Want to learn more about programs
X
67
Yes
More
No
I always wanted to look at SHC
X
68
Yes
More
Yes
Doesn't have my program
X
69
Yes
More
Yes
SHC could be life changing for me
X
70
Yes
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
71
Yes
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
72
Yes
More
No
Just want my GED
X
73
Yes
More
Yes
Would go here if it had my program
X
75
No
More
Yes
Great teachers. Interactive classes.
X
76
Yes
More
Yes
Didn't know degrees were accepted nation-wide
X
78
Yes
More
Yes
More confident I can get a degree now
X
79
Yes
More
Yes
Way better than just a community college
X
80
Yes
More
Yes
Fun option
X
81
Yes
More
No
Already planned to attend SHC
X
82
Yes
More
Yes
Starting to lean towards looking at this school
X
83
Yes
More
Yes
My opinions changed. Great college with great teachers.
X
X
84
Yes
More
Yes
Unsure
X
85
Yes
More
No
Great school, but missing my program
X
86
Yes
More
Yes
Always planned on attending SHC
X
87
Yes
More
Yes
I've learned a lot in this class and don't want to stop
X
88
Yes
More
Yes
Great teachers. Good experience. Lots of help.
X
89
Yes
More
Yes
Want to come here now. Thought it was a bad before
X
90
Yes
More
Yes
SHC has become my 2nd choice after BYU
X
X
91
Yes
More
No
I am interested in learning more about SHC
X
92
Yes
More
Yes
Great teacher. One on one time is helpful
X
93
Yes
More
Yes
New view of college. More confident now.
X
94
No
More
Yes
Very helpful
X
95
Yes
More
No
Just interested in GED
X
96
Yes
More
No
doesn't have my program
X
97
Yes
More
Yes
Great GED program. Better than regular HS
X
98
Yes
More
No
Great GED but doesn't have my college interests
X
X
99
Yes
More
Yes
Seems to be a better option now
X
101
Yes
More
No
I think other colleges are better
X
102
Yes
More
No
Not interested in SHC
X
103
Yes
More
Yes
Fun, good environment
X
64
104
Yes
More
Yes
Nice staff that cares
X
105
Yes
More
Yes
Great program for SHC to have
X
106
Yes
More
Yes
SHC is an option for college now.
X
107
Yes
More
No
Doesn't have my program
X
Survey #
Q4
Q4a Theme
Better
1
2
3
4
4
Better
Showed how much they care about their students
x
6
Better
Made it easy to learn.
x
9
Worse
10
Better
Helped with FA.
x
11
Better
Offers better career opportunities
x
13
Better
Good school
x
14
Better
Because the GED was free.
x
16
Better
Admire SHC for having GED. Don't know about SHC.
x
18
Better
Helped me realize how to succed
x
19
Better
20
Worse
Credits don't transfer.
x
22
Better
More programs than I expected
x
23
Better
24
Better
Good experience here
x
27
Better
I didn't want to go here, but now I do because of the people here
x
28
Better
Great teachers
x
29
Better
Great teachers
x
30
Better
I can't afford school, so I like free programs
x
31
Better
Free programs are good. Feedback from SHC students is bad.
x
32
Better
Good environment with good people
x
33
Better
Want to attend here now
x
34
Better
GED really makes SHC look good
x
35
Better
Taught me to get a career
x
36
Better
Learned a lot
x
38
Better
Inspired me to look into all options
x
39
Better
Much better opinion of SHC
x
40
Better
Want to get a career now
x
41
Better
42
Better
48
Better
49
Better
Friendly staff
x
51
Better
Want more out of life
x
52
Better
Now feel SHC is legitimate and professional school
x
54
Better
I want to go to college
x
55
Better
Thought about GED here, then UVU, but really like SHC
x
56
Better
57
Better
Learned about what it takes to do college
x
60
Better
Like the programs
x
61
Better
Great teachers
x
62
Better
Other schools don't try to help as much
x
63
Better
GED helped so much. SHC might have other programs that could help
x
64
Better
More programs than I expected
x
65
Better
I learned a lot
x
66
Better
Learned a lot about SHC
x
67
Better
I want to go to SHC
x
68
Better
I would suggest the SHC GED program to others
x
69
Better
Perfect match for my ADD
x
65
71
Better
I learned a lot
x
72
Better
Great teachers
x
75
Better
Because of GED I feel I could go to college at SHC
x
76
Better
Lots of FA help
x
78
Better
More confident I can get a degree now
x
79
Better
Better learning environment than most places
x
80
Better
Experience made me consider SHC for college
x
82
Better
Now I know more about SHC and am impressed
x
83
Better
Way more confidence now.
x
84
Better
I like it better
x
85
Better
Great administration
x
86
Better
More confident in myself now
x
87
Better
Great teachers
x
88
Better
Great college. Would like to continue here
x
89
Better
More confident in school now
x
90
Better
Great and helpful program
x
91
Better
Getting my GED will provide job opportunities
x
92
Better
I have learned a lot
x
93
Better
94
Better
Once I decide what to study, this is where I want to go
x
97
Better
Great GED program
x
99
Better
I learned more about college
x
103
Better
I learned a lot about SHC
x
104
Better
showed how much they care about their students, not just money
x
105
Better
Great that SHC didn't do a bait-and-switch
x
106
Better
Lots of options here
x
Interviews
Participant
Age
SHC Student
Gender
City
Q1
Q1b
Q2A
Q2B
Q2C
Q2D
Q2E
Q2F
Q2G
Q2H
Q2I
Q2J
1
19
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
20
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
12
32
2
2
2
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
18
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
19
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
22
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
30
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
8
46
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
32
2
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
10
29
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
18
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Totals:
4
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
2
66
"Did Know" Totals:
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
Participant
Q3A
Q3B
Q3C
Q3D
Q3E
Q3F
Q3G
Q4A
Q4B
Q4C
Q4D
Q4E
Q4F
Q4G
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
5
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
10
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
11
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Totals:
9
3
6
1
3
4
2
2
1
2
6
8
3
1
SHC Student Key:
Gender Key:
City Key:
Q1 Key:
Q1b Key:
1: Yes
1: Male
1: Orem
1: Yes
1: A - Approach to Education
2: No
2: Female
2: Springville
2: No
2: B - Financial Differences
3: C - Accreditation Differences
0: Blank
Q2 Response Key:
1: Marked
0: Blank
Q2A: For profit degrees are quicker (B)
Q2B: For profit degrees have more emphasis on major (B)
Q2C: Bigger/well known school degrees are better (A)
Q2D: Employers would prefer traditional degrees (A)
Q2E: Depends on the field of study (C)
Q2F: Greater Recognition at traditional (better perceived) (A)
Q2G: Traditional provides well-rounded education (A)
Q2H: Traditional Favored
Q2I: For-Profit Favored
Q2J: Neither Favored
Q3 Response Key:
1: Marked
0: Blank
Q3A: More prestigious/recognized (perceived credibility) colleges help on resume (A)
Q3B: Harder to get jobs with degrees from for-profit (A)
Q3C: Different industries will prefer different schools (A)
Q3D: No one cares where you got it, just that you have it (B)
Q3E: Skills are more important than degrees (B)
Q3F: Employers Care
Q3G: Employers don't care
67
Appendix D: IRB Approval
April 10, 2012
Mr. Bean:
You recently submitted for Institutional Review Board review a student research proposal entitled, “Perception of a Local For-Profit College by Adult Non-High School Graduates.” Your study has been assigned the following IRB tracking number: #00867.
Based on the information provided on the application, and the reviewers' recommended changes you made to your protocols, your research proposal appears to pose "minimal" risks to human subjects and, therefore, meets the Federal criteria for an "expedited" review.
You herein have approval to begin your research from the UVU Institutional Review Board. This approval is good until April 3, 2013 (365 days from the date of approval). After this date, you will no longer be authorized to collect and analyze data unless you complete and submit a request for continuing status form. Multiple year studies must be reviewed and approved annually by the full IRB.
To ensure that individuals and organizations involved in your study are aware that you have received IRB approval, please use the IRB tracking numbers above on all documents and communications associated with this project as identification of IRB authorization (i.e., IRB Approval #00867).
Please notify Nancy L. Bartlett, the IRB Administrator, at (801) 863-8156, BA203d, of any changes made in the instruments, consent form, or research process, so the IRB can review and approve them before the change is implemented.
When you have completed your research, please notify the IRB. In keeping with Federal regulations, you must retain your research data for a period of 3 years from the date of completion of the research.
If you have any questions, please let us know. We wish you well with your research!
Dr. Glendon Parker, Chair
Institutional Review Board
Utah Valley University
800 West University Parkway
MS 179, Room LA11b
Orem, Utah 84058
(801) 863-6907
Glendon.Parker@uvu.edu
Nancy L. Bartlett
University Compliance Officer
IRB and Post-Award Grant Administrator
Division of Planning, Budget, and Policy
Utah Valley University
800 West University Parkway, MS272
Orem, Utah 84058
Room: BA203d
801-863-8156
Nancy.Bartlett@uvu.edu